Talk:Hate group/Archive 1

message: Texture (revert - AntiDefemation League as a hate group? Jewish-Russian mafia?) 
Yup, the ADL is a "hate group", as defined in your opening statement, as is the Jewish-Russian Mafia.
"A supremacist -- of whatever race -- is distinct from a 'separatist.' A separatist may believe that his race is superior to other races in some or all characteristics, but this is not his essential belief. The separatist is defined by his wish for freedom and independence for his people. He wishes them to have their own society, to be led by their own kind, to have a government which looks out for their interests alone. The separatist does not wish to live in a multiracial society at all, so he naturally has no desire to rule over other races -- since such rule necessitates the multiracial society the separatist wants to avoid at all costs. 
A supremacist, in contrast, demands a multiracial society, since it is the supremacist's express wish that he dominate or rule over other races in such a society, such rule often being justified by a doctrine of racial superiority." 
Hence, "David Gerard", in all of his POV reverts is both a "Jewish Supremacist" and a "lying hypocrite". What else isn't new?
 Texture (revert more vandalism by same user) 
Vandalism? Since when is the NPOV truth, vandalism?
Only your own POV reverts are "vandalism".
Only the first paragraph has a NPOV.
If you want to "name" any "hate groups", then you must add ANY 
that actually fit the definition given in the opening statement.
The ADL, JDL, and the ethnically "Jewish-Russian" Mafia, all DO qualify, with any NPOV, under that exact same definition given in the opening paragraph or in that opening statement.
:No, you can give examples that are clear and leave out what is disputed. - Texture 21:45, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I can only say that your idea of NPOV seems to differ from that of the rest of us.  Perhaps you should start your own encyclopedia? - Texture 18:34, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

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

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

message: While nobody probably wants to protect hate groups themselves, at least let's not trash the article. If someone wants to include the POV that:
*one group sometimes falsely labels another as a hate group just to get it into trouble
...then what's wrong with that? --Uncle Ed 22:28, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protection

message: I do not know what were you thinking, Andries when doing these edits. Maybe you care to explain how these edits add value to the article and how readers benefit from these?
My assessment of these edits:
#These edits add zero value to this article
#These are minuteae edits with the purpose of obfuscation.
#By adding Gubler's website you are opening a can of worms. Do you want me to publish the affidavit in which Gubler declares that ex-premies are a hate group?
≈ jossi ≈ 15:30, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
:I think the edits to the checklist/elements are important. They were an attempt at dispute resolution. I would agree that the article becomes more complex by my edits, which I think you would classify as obfuscation, but I can not help it that reality is more complex than you may think. If you think that my edits are minutiae then why do you care to write comments about them? Andries 15:41, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  No value edits 

message: I do not have a problems with facts and neutrality anymore though I can not say that I like the current version. Andries 18:25, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Can the disputed fact and neutrality tag get removed?