Talk:List of purported hate groups

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page has been overhauled by me. Where before there was no criteria, but lengthy citations back to the ADL for most entries, now there is a criteria (appearance on a list kept by one of the major anti-hate groups), marked by asterisks and daggers. I hope this will make the list more authoritative. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:49, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

---

Numerous groups have been alleged to be hate groups as defined in that article. However, such allegations are controversial, since the criteria can be highly subjective, and there is no objective standard that will clearly distinguish between legitimate groups addressing legitimate grievances and hate groups acting from bigotry and unreason. For example, some new religious movements allege that their critics profess the hate and ill-will commonly associated with hate groups and that their criticism must be looked at as intolerance and bigotry.

This last sentence seems especially murky to me. Only a couple of groups on this list could be considered NRMs, so I don't think it is particularly relevant to bring that in. As fas as I am aware, the issue arises more with "white nationalist" groups like the Council of Conservative Citizens, who insist that they don't hate anybody. In fact, the entire opening paragraph almost seems to say that there are no hate groups. No offense to other editors, but since there is already an article on hate groups the intro here should be a mere substubette reflection of the main article. I'm going to see if I can write a fresh version that is better. Cheers, -Willmcw 07:57, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Well spotted, Will. Thanks. It reads much better now. --Zappaz 16:19, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Why was the description removed? 2 Anti-religious groups 3 Cult apologist 4 American patrol and vdare=hate groups 5 Seriously out of date 6 MECHA 7 Anti-gay groups

[edit] Why was the description removed?

The description for Westboro Baptist Church was removed. I do not see why this was done. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:14, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is just a list. The article about WBC gives a full description of the group. -Willmcw 21:42, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-religious groups

Sociologists Anson Shupe and Susan E. Darnell wrote:

Our final conclusion is that a reasonable description of CAN, as it existed 1986-1995, views it as a criminal organization playing on hate and fear themes, organized against new religious movements (and other groups) in large part for profit to certain actors, and hypocritical and deceptive in its public persona. [1]

The jury’s decision, under the definitions provided in Washington law, was that CAN was truly an organized hate campaign. [ibid]

It's not just the Scientologists. It's also sociologists, and at least one jury. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 04:12, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

The jury did not comment about CAN being a hate group, at least that I can see. (Maybe you can show me how they did that - I may have missed it, I only saw where they decided the defendants acted with reckless negligence). Darnell is not a sociologist, she's a manager of a credit union. Skeptictank claims that Shupe was hired by Scientology to attack CAN. http://www.skeptictank.org/gen1/gen00529.htm Do you have a respectable, indepedent source that has labelled CAN a hate group? If not, we could still include them, but only with a very large footnote. Thanks, -Willmcw 05:43, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. You are right: only Shupe is a sociologist. His co-writer should NOT be credited as a sociologist.

Also, I guess I need to distinguish between:

• Shupe concluding that the jury called CAN a hate group, and
• a direct quote from a court document directly calling CAN a hate group.

However, I think we are safe in regarding Anson Shupe as a respectable, independent source. But if you dispute this, than let's invoke the NPOV policy and describe the dispute between sociolgist Shupe and CAN-supporter skepticnet. But bear in mind that several sociologists have commented that when they report "neutrally" (their words) on cults, anti-cultists routinely label them as "cult apologists" or "in the pay of the cults". -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:52, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Ed, I have added the Church of Scientology as the source of the label, which is a reasonably compact description. Do you think that's adequate? Cheers, -Willmcw 19:46, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Disagree. COS is not an appropriate source. BTW, this was discussed in "60 minutes" in '87. [2]

Footage of Scieno picketers with signs saying "CAN is a hate group", "No more hate, no more riots", "Stop hate mongering in Los Angeles, don’t support CAN", "CAN kidnappers get out of LA", Stop Religious Hate Crimes, Stop Ku Klux CAN".

--Zappaz 03:47, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

... and on CNN [3]

Shupe's own words: The jury’s decision, under the definitions provided in Washington law, was that CAN was truly an organized hate campaign. CAN described its activities in a euphemistic manner to make its activities seem less outrageous from a civil liberties perspective. The reason CAN ever became involved in the Scott lawsuit was that, consistent with its organizational pattern, it served as a conduit for referrals to coercive deprogrammers (later termed by CAN "exit counselors") who would, for a fee, abduct and during detention harangue family members into religious apostasy. [4]

.. as for Scientology's , their "Freedom Magazine" did not mince words: The Seprent opf Hatred, Intolerance and Violence and Death: Cult Awareness Network [5]

--Zappaz 03:54, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cult apologist

Let's not argue about it, guys. Let's describe the dispute fairly, per NPOV policy.

• Some people call these sociologists (Barker, Shupe, etc.) "cult apologists".
• Others maintain call them neutral and objective.

Perhaps it's not our place to evaluate the sociologists in terms of whether they are pro-cult, neutral, or anti-cult. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:59, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. --Zappaz 17:34, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] American patrol and vdare=hate groups

They wouldn't be on this page if they weren't. Putting them under the the category of "immigration reform" or anything else like it is just a bad joke. They are just as bad as every single group on here and should not be accomadated with a title that belies their true nature. Mosquito-001 19:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seriously out of date

This page is very out of date and does not even a feature the majority of major hate groups on there. For a more comprhensive list consider using this map of active hate groups in 2005.

That list includes many small groups, like local chapters of the skinheads, dozens of splinter KKK groups, and individual Christian Identity churches. We do list all of the major movements and groups, but if you think we've left an important one out then please add it, with an explanation and source. Though we don't have an article about every large group, someday we may. But we'll never have articles about the smaller groups unless their activities become so notable as to be referenced in reliable sources. -Will Beback 05:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MECHA

Is there good reason for MECHA to be on here? It's open to criticism, but doesn't really seem to fit the bill as a hate group. It's the only group on here which doesn' appear on the ADL or Hatewatch list. It seems inappropriate to include a group whose members who have occasionally acted irresponsibly but whose official stances would not qualify them as a hate group. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Luqmancharsobis (talk • contribs).

That's a correct assessment. Groups should not be aded without sources. -Will Beback 18:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-gay groups

I removed Focus on the Family and Concerned Women for America from the list mainly since the source actually doesn't directly refer to these organizations as hate groups. In fact, there is a list of anti-gay organizations on the SPLC website with stars next to their name to indicate that they are a hate group. FOF and CWA don't have stars.

I was also the one who actually added them in the first place due to the article hinting at their activities being that of a hate group.

--Joe Capricorn 00:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)