Talk:Hate group/Archive 4

message: 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: 
# it provides a counter point to the previous paragraphs related to critics of an NRM labeling the NRM a hate group;
# the NRM makes a substantial point of calling these critics a hate group, and includes documentation on their FAQs about these allegations;
# 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;
# 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.
# 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: 
# critics consider this is a libelous accusation by the "cult" against them;
# critics consider the evidence publicized as the basis for being labeled a hate group, to be uncorroborated and not sufficient;
# critics see this as serious and offensive charge;
# 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;
# 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)
thread_title: RfC Dispute summary

message: 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)
thread_title: Comments

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I'll try, looking forward to see you again. Thomas h 19:24, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Back to RfC 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  A way to break the deadlock 

message: This edit is based on some suggestions made by Gary D, to whom I asked for advise (see my Talk page).
#I have reduced the whole section to a postdata mention;
#The Scientology and ex-premie debate about being labelled hate groups to be moved to their respective articles;
#Moved most of the text as a new section of the New religious movement article.
--Zappaz 12:03, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Robert Enderle's comments added. --Zappaz 17:50, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: wow, that was fast, phew! Thomas h 20:28, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Today's edit

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: American Family Foundation as a hate group

message: 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)
thread_title: The word ''unreasonable'' is very important in the definition

message: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  VfD 

message: 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)
replies: text: Very right. All these were already listed in List of purported hate groups. --Zappaz 03:51, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section merger 

message: 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)
thread_title:  White supremacist apologetics? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hate rock and paganism 

message: '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)
thread_title:  SPLW as "white supremacist group" 

message: I removed the following sentence:
:Sometimes Al-Qaeda, an Islamic terrorist organization, is classified as a hate group.
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)
thread_title:  al-Qaeda 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pro-Hate 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Edited article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  put up NPOV disclaimer 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Racism in the Republican party" OR Cults of Hate Personality

message: 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)
thread_title:  What about commies? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reference to Elan Vital removed 

message: 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)
thread_title: Anton Hein is not a reliable source

message: "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)
thread_title: Sources

message: I have added the  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)
thread_title:  Globalize 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Hate organization]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Self Contradictory and Unsourced 

message: 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)
thread_title:  No legal definition of "Hate Group" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  64.7.166.43 

message: Really?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.150.103 (talk) 02:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tagged it for globalisation. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  So hate groups only exist in the USA? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Concur. 2606:A000:7542:2600:3119:86:3C56:7306 (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Obama Hate Groups"? Facebook Hate groups? 

message: An 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)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tax exemption 

message: Greta Munger (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Student edits to begin on psychology section only