Talk:Hate speech

message: The entire thing read like an essay - there were no secondary sources supporting the premise that these sources represented major sources of thought on the topic; the paragraph on J. S. Mill had just a single primary citation to Mill and no citations that mentioned hate speech at all, and the final paragraph made a tenuous connection to sources that weren't really discussing hate speech and only mentioned it in passing, grouping them together as a major thread of thought on the topic without any real sources supporting that perspective. Some aspects here might be worth addressing as attributed interpretations of the subject in the commentary section (although I think much of it is already there) but I think we should lead with a history of the subject and its more general context, focusing on what we can cite to secondary sources that actually discuss its history and larger context. --Aquillion (talk) 20:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Theories of hate speech" section was a mess. 

message: I have a problem with this term. To me it is 2 words of which each has a meaning, and it should be my right to speak about how much I hate to eat certain foods.  
It doesn't even appear to be a compound word.  It it is just a phrase then why overload the normal two words meanings with another? It makes it nonsense.
There should be some clarification as to what has happened to these two words which obviously mean different things to different people... yet the article seems to think there is only one meaning. 120.18.188.137 (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Red herring.   signed, Willondon (talk)  15:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

text: The article uses it as two words and I don't think that anybody at all is suggesting that it is a single word. I don't think there is anything here that requires discussion or clarification. DanielRigal (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

text: See Etymological fallacy: "an argument that a word is defined by its etymology, and that its customary usage is therefore incorrect." TFD (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Hate Speech 1 word or 2? 

message: — Assignment last updated by NavyBear314 (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Gender, Race and Computing

message: I have restored the source in one place that cites the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
It is notable not just that "hate speech" has no clear definition, but that attempted definitions are usually vague. 
If you believe that this is less notable than the two dictionary definitions and a lone scholar, discuss here. DenverCoder19 (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that that accurately summarizes the main thrust of that source; to the extend that it pulls one part of that definition out, it was giving it undue weight. The first sentence of that source says ; your summary leaned more towards treating the second group there as being objectively correct and ignored the first part, but the source doesn't really take that position. In any case this is all handled in more depth and nuance further down the lead, so I don't think your addition is an improvement -  already covers what you're trying to add in a more neutral tone. --Aquillion (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stanford Encyclopedic Definition