Talk:Hate group: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 20:08, 4 April 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hate group article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 3 months

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Hate group. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Hate group at the Reference desk.

Crime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discrimination High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology High‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Misinformation in flags in symbols/shows only selected forms of hate.

misguided complaints from someone who doesn’t understand policy Dronebogus (talk) 05:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend to update the list of flags and symbols to more represented sample of it. E.g., to make it more diverse and show more existed forms of hate in this section (e.g., even pick more diverse pool from SPLC Hate groups watchlist: New Black Panther Party or Nation of Islam or whatever more 'inclusive') OR to delete it at all in current version.

I tried to delete the part shows a visual example of hate groups using misinformation of 'common flags and symbols'. Hate has no faces or borders (in North American context: races, colors, genders) but the ability to evolution and adaption, so it is dangerous to misinform it might 'commonly' exist (only) in old versions of Third Reich SS (not homogeneous national socialist group over time) or other related symbols. Don't know why, but changes were momentally reverted with false statment that I tried to delite all of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9E01:740:54A:70CB:EB8:31EE (talk) 21:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendation declined. Hate groups do have flags and whatnot. Drmies (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* So may you argument your point of view to selection of this flags and whatnot? Now I see your point as 'hatred have faces, but I'will decide what faces it have'. Why have we moral right to have bias against sources we use and to pick only parts that prove our views when we edit the Free enciclopedia? Also, I negatively like the unhealthy point of view that 'hatred have faces and flags' and as well as ' links to 'phone memes' they saw somewhere in their informational space. Don't represent your biases, please. Hate haven't got faces, symbols or flags e.t.c, people who acquire ideals of hate have and produce it to identify himself. And, also recommend to avoid American chouvinism in your answers and articles at all. The hate is not only american feature or 'priviledge' at all, as the english language and wiki are. 2600:1700:9E01:740:448C:3DC0:8562:CCF9 (talk) 18:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* I don't believe in credibility and truth in this local talks so made a Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Discrimination#Re-make_'Hate_group'_article_and_check_it_on_bias. Hope would not be deleted as all before. 2600:1700:9E01:740:448C:3DC0:8562:CCF9 (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What are the characteristics of a hate group?

If this article can exist. It should be able to do more than just try and hope people will accept hate groups exist. It needs to be defined. 39.41.240.141 (talk) 02:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m assuming good faith here but you really need to re-read the article. The opening paragraph is, in its entirety: “A hate group is a social group that advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, nation, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or any other designated sector of society. According to the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), a hate group's "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.”” That is the definition of a hate group. A group that exists to promote hate of an out-group or groups Dronebogus (talk) 03:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good reply. TFD (talk) 03:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m merely stating the need to have some sort of taxonomy of hate groups. Some common characteristics we can use to lump similar movements(both present and past in this). I’m sure no one will object to the existence of hate groups, many organised pogroms would fall in this. As would many anti-Semitic and anti-Islam groups.

The issue is how whimsically this definition is being upheld. The standards for what passes and doesn’t pass as: “…promote animosity, hostility, and malice against…” are in no way robust.

Anything can be defined as any of those words; we need standards and empirical behaviour of these groups that’s distinct enough. Just as we have standards for what counts as cult like behaviour. 39.41.240.141 (talk) 13:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anything can be defined as any of those words is an inaccurate and untrue statement. The League of Women Voters, for instance, cannot be defined in that way, nor can the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I also do not see any signs of "whimsey" in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know what this user (the IP) wants. They seem to be requesting a change that only they understand, to a description only they find confusing. Feels very WP:CIRy Dronebogus (talk) 07:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, editors who make these types of comments usually subscribe to one or more types of hate, usually Islamophobia or anti-LGBTQA+. To them, the concept of hate cannot be clear if it includes what they see as reasoned positions. Wikipedia editors of course cannot evaluate what constitutes hate, merely report what is included in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I’m saying users need to be able to identity hate groups when I open Wikipedia. If I don’t have a set of logical criteria I can follow: users cannot differentiate. I’m sure a valid source exists for this. This has nothing to do with me thinking something is a reasonable position. There must be a way we can put these things into their proper boxes - without definitions that can be applied and checked we run the risk of being pseudoscientific. 39.41.170.255 (talk) 23:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Defining a hate group is in no way a scientific endeavor, it's a social-historical one. If what's already in the article is not sufficient for you, you're never going to be satisfied. Because you are the only editor who is dissatisfied with that aspect of the article, I suggest you move on, as further discussion along these lines is clearly not going to benefit the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting very Newton's flaming laser sword-y Dronebogus (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems clear to me. If a group's main activity is to promote hatred toward one or more of the groups listed, it's a hate group, otherwise it isn't. TFD (talk) 00:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Q.E.D. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conspicuously absent is history or etymology of the phrase

When was the term "hate group" first used or when did it become popularised? What is the etymology of the term? One can see that the use of "hate" in the phrase has a idiosyncratic meaning that is not within the usual definitions of the English word "hate". 110.175.78.214 (talk) 09:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{Talk header}}
 {{controversial}}
+{{Not a forum}}
+{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|
+{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=Mid}}
+{{WikiProject Discrimination|importance=High}}
+{{WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies}}
+{{WikiProject Psychology |importance= Low}}
+{{WikiProject Sociology |importance= High}}
+}}
+{{User:MiszaBot/config
+|archiveheader = {{archive navigation}}
+|maxarchivesize = 150K
+|counter = 5
+|minthreadsleft = 3
+|minthreadstoarchive = 1
+|algo = old(90d)
+|archive = Talk:Hate group/Archive %(counter)d
+}}
+== Misinformation in flags in symbols/shows only selected forms of hate.  ==
-[[Talk:Hate_group/archive01]]
+{{cot|misguided complaints from someone who doesn’t understand policy [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 05:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)}}
-__TOC__
+Recommend ''to update'' the list of flags and symbols to more represented sample of it. E.g., to make it more diverse and show more existed forms of hate in this section (e.g., even pick more diverse pool from SPLC Hate groups watchlist: [https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/new-black-panther-party New Black Panther Party] or [https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/nation-islam Nation of Islam] or whatever more 'inclusive') '''OR''' ''to delete'' it at all in current version.
+I tried to delete the part shows a visual example of hate groups using misinformation of 'common flags and symbols'. Hate has no faces or borders (in North American context: races, colors, genders) but the ability to evolution and adaption, so it is dangerous to misinform it might 'commonly' exist (only) in old versions of Third Reich SS (not homogeneous national socialist group over time) or other related symbols. Don't know why, but changes were momentally reverted with false statment that I tried to delite all of the article.<!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2600:1700:9E01:740:54A:70CB:EB8:31EE|2600:1700:9E01:740:54A:70CB:EB8:31EE]] ([[User talk:2600:1700:9E01:740:54A:70CB:EB8:31EE#top|talk]]) 21:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+*Recommendation declined. Hate groups do have flags and whatnot. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 21:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
-==Hate groups and NRMs is a minor issue==
+:: * So may you argument your point of view to selection of this flags and whatnot? Now I see your point as 'hatred have faces, but I'will decide what faces it have'. Why have we moral right to have bias against sources we use and to pick only parts that prove our views when we edit the Free enciclopedia? Also, I negatively like the unhealthy point of view that 'hatred have faces and flags' and as well as ' links to 'phone memes' they saw somewhere in their informational space. Don't represent your biases, please. Hate haven't got faces, symbols or flags e.t.c, people who acquire ideals of hate have and produce it to identify himself. And, also recommend to avoid American chouvinism in your answers and articles at all. The hate is not only american feature or 'priviledge' at all, as the english language and wiki are. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1700:9E01:740:448C:3DC0:8562:CCF9|2600:1700:9E01:740:448C:3DC0:8562:CCF9]] ([[User talk:2600:1700:9E01:740:448C:3DC0:8562:CCF9|talk]]) 18:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
-So the section should be correspondingly relatively small. I worked hard to make it that way, so please do not add content to the section hate groups and NRMs unless there is a very good reason for it. I do not think that Phatgrrl had a good reason to expand it. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 16:32, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
+:: * I don't believe in credibility and truth in this local talks so made a [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Discrimination#Re-make_'Hate_group'_article_and_check_it_on_bias]]. Hope would not be deleted as all before. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1700:9E01:740:448C:3DC0:8562:CCF9|2600:1700:9E01:740:448C:3DC0:8562:CCF9]] ([[User talk:2600:1700:9E01:740:448C:3DC0:8562:CCF9|talk]]) 19:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
+{{cob}}
+== What are the characteristics of a hate group? ==
-:Of course you worked hard ... It would only be fair if you dsiclose your afdfiliation with trhe ex-premie group. Or do you want me to do give libnks to te conversatoons you have with them about how to "fix" this aritcle?  The reason I expanded the aritcle is that I think your affiloiation wityh the ex-premie group does not give you the right to edit them "out" of the aritcvle. Disgraceful behaviour. They are a  hate group in my view and the view of others, and that has to be told in the atricle. --[[User:Phat grrl|Phat grrl]] 16:46, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
+If this article can exist. It should be able to do more than just try and hope people will accept hate groups exist. It needs to be defined. [[Special:Contributions/39.41.240.141|39.41.240.141]] ([[User talk:39.41.240.141|talk]]) 02:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
-::I did not edit the ex-premie group out of the article. I only ensured that the NRM controversy is given the place it deserves in the article, a small one, which should stay that way. And feel free to link to my public conversation with ex-premies about this here if it is related to the changes you want to suggest to the article. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 16:52, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
+:I’m assuming good faith here but you really need to re-read the article. The opening paragraph is, in its entirety: “A hate group is a social group that advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, nation, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or any other designated sector of society. According to the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), a hate group's "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.”” That is the ''definition of a hate group.'' ''A group that exists to promote hate of an [[In-group and out-group|out-group]] or groups'' [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 03:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
-:::You are still not disclosing  yiuor affiliations with the expremies. That it unfair and dihoenst. You shuold have done so before you editi their name out of the list of hate groups.
+::Good reply. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 03:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
-:::The article needs more wortk. I agree, and expansion on other mainstream areas of hate groups. Work on that but do noit remove the sexction about the hate-group ex-premie. --[[User:Phat grrl|Phat grrl]] 16:58, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
+::I’m merely stating the need to have some sort of taxonomy of hate groups. Some common characteristics we can use to lump similar movements(both present and past in this). I’m sure no one will object to the existence of hate groups, many organised pogroms would fall in this. As would many anti-Semitic and anti-Islam groups.
+::The issue is how whimsically this definition is being upheld. The standards for what passes and doesn’t pass as: “…promote animosity, hostility, and malice against…” are in no way robust.
+::Anything can be defined as any of those words; we need standards and empirical behaviour of these groups that’s distinct enough. Just as we have standards for what counts as cult like behaviour. [[Special:Contributions/39.41.240.141|39.41.240.141]] ([[User talk:39.41.240.141|talk]]) 13:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
+:::''Anything can be defined as any of those words'' is an inaccurate and untrue statement. The [[League of Women Voters]], for instance, cannot be defined in that way, nor can the [[Royal Canadian Mounted Police]].  I also do not see any signs of "whimsey" in the article. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 18:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
+::::I don’t know what this user (the IP) wants. They seem to be requesting a change that only they understand, to a description only they find confusing. Feels very [[WP:CIR]]y [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 07:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
+:::::I agree. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 11:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
+:::::In my experience, editors who make these types of comments usually subscribe to one or more types of hate, usually Islamophobia or anti-LGBTQA+. To them, the concept of hate cannot be clear if it includes what they see as reasoned positions. Wikipedia editors of course cannot evaluate what constitutes hate, merely report what is included in reliable sources. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 18:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
+::::::No, I’m saying users need to be able to identity hate groups when I open Wikipedia. If I don’t have a set of logical criteria I can follow: users cannot differentiate. I’m sure a valid source exists for this. This has nothing to do with me thinking something is a reasonable position. There must be a way we can put these things into their proper boxes - without definitions that can be applied and checked we run the risk of being pseudoscientific. [[Special:Contributions/39.41.170.255|39.41.170.255]] ([[User talk:39.41.170.255|talk]]) 23:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
+:::::::Defining a hate group is in no way a scientific endeavor, it's a social-historical one.  If what's already in the article is not sufficient for you, you're never going to be satisfied.  Because you are the only editor who is dissatisfied with that aspect of the article, I suggest you move on, as further discussion along these lines is clearly not going to benefit the article. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 23:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
+::::::::This is getting very [[Newton's flaming laser sword]]-y [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 16:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
+:::::::It seems clear to me. If a group's main activity is to promote hatred toward one or more of the groups listed, it's a hate group, otherwise it isn't. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 00:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
+::::::::[[Q.E.D.]] [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 01:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
+== Conspicuously absent is history or etymology of the phrase ==
-::::Phatgrrl, the fact that Elan Vital calls the ex-premies a hate groups had already been mentioned. I did not remove that. This does not deserve more than just mentioning. Who else apart from Elan Vital and, some, not even all, current students of Prem Rawat consider the ex-premies a hate group? This is just a family feud and the articles on Maharaji should digress on the family feud, not here in a general article about hate groups. I have to admit that I am partially responsible for the the relatively big section on NRMs but we should not be made worse by expanding it without a good reason. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 17:06, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
+When was the term "hate group" first used or when did it become popularised? What is the etymology of the term? One can see that the use of "hate" in the phrase has a idiosyncratic meaning that is not within the usual definitions of the English word "hate". [[Special:Contributions/110.175.78.214|110.175.78.214]] ([[User talk:110.175.78.214|talk]]) 09:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
-:::::yiou are masterful at avoinding the issue here. You are affiliated to the ex-premies and promoting their points ofd view in wikipedia. You discuss with them sdtrategies to put their behaviour in best light. If it is a falmilty feud what the heck are you doing in their "family". They are useing you dont' you see it? the section about nrms explains trhat many ant-cultits use bigortry and hate to diminish the freedoms of others. BIGOTRY=HATE. I am shocked you don't see that. llike it or not, they are a hate grpup by the standars presxented in thsi ariticle. I am not asking to expand the nrm section. Expnad the other sections if you like, thanks--[[User:Phat grrl|Phat grrl]] 17:17, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-::::::There were only two non former followers on their forum i.e. Wim Haan who had written a scholarly article about the DLM in 1981 and me. The rest are all former followers. Besides I do not think that you have written in a NPOV way. No, I do not think that anti-cult activism is about bigotry. It is about offering people the possibility of making an informed choice by disclosing information that the groups themselves generally not disclose. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 17:26, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-:::::::Yiuo keep avoiding the issue. Anyway, I don;t care to say any more. Your behaviour speaks for itslelf. Yiu have provedn that youi avoid talking resposnibilty for your covert actions in helping the expremies withot disclosing. your affiliation.
-:::::::Anti-cult activism is about bigorty plain ans simple. Like it or not. What you thinkl is of no consequence, as you are an anti-cultist youreself. --[[User:Phat grrl|Phat grrl]] 18:06, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-::::::::And please don't thinlk for a minute that I am disavdantaged because of my dislexia. I may not write well but I mean what I say. --[[User:Phat grrl|Phat grrl]] 18:08, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-::::::::::Phat? Phat means Buddha in Vietnam.Very interesting. So you are the angry Buddha girl? Doesn't matter anyway. to make every person that exits a cult and speaks about that a level III apostate, make every activity against a cult some kind of crime in general, may be a tactic you prefer to follow, but is IMHO an extremely primitive attitude. this tactic is of course not your invention, it is well documented in the guidelines of scientology for example. there you can find that external critics that do not know of any internal activities are      relatively easy to handle, but the real enemies are those that have been part of the organisation and can reveal facts of the internal structure. please note, nobody here uses the term "hate" as often as your kind. [[User:Thomas h|Thomas h]] 09:22, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-== Removal of Ex-premies as a Hate Group ==
-After posting this I will remove all mention of ex-premies (former followers of Prem Rawat) as a hate group in this article. Before anyone considers reverting my changes, they should consider my reasons for making them as listed here:-
-:The subject of Hate Groups is a serious subject and seriously impacts people's lives. Violence and fear resulting from racism and religious intolerance threaten communities, countries, and even global stability. This article should focus on the groups that properly belong in the category of 'hate group' as understood in normal language. If the definition in the article allows other groups that are clearly not hate groups to be included, then the definition is wrong. The subject of hate groups should not be belittled by allowing the article to become a battlefield in a minor online squabble between followers and former followers of a little known indian guru.
-:The only groups that claim that ex-premies are a hate group are Elan Vital and other followers of Prem Rawat in anonymous websites. Giving Elan Vital's claims credibility, by including them in this article, would mean that Philip Morris, Microsoft, Monsanto, Saddam Hussein, or any other public figure or organisation could discredit their critics on Wikipedia by claiming they are a hate group just as Elan Vital have done. Clearly this would be absurd. Elan Vital's clearly biased POV that ex-premies are a hate group is already included in the Prem Rawat criticism article, and has no scholarly value to be included elsewhere.
-:Almost all the justification for ex-premies being a hate group given on Elan Vital's sites is presented without any supporting evidence. Even where supporting evidence is given, the allegations do not by any definition justify the label 'hate group'.
-:Accusing a group of being a 'hate group' is a very serious allegation, and needs to be backed up by independent scholarly sources before being allowed in Wikipedia. Elan Vital does not constitute an independent scholarly source. Ex-premie.org is linked throughout the internet as an important resource on Prem Rawat/Elan Vital/Divine Light Mission. Apart from Elan Vital and anonymous followers' websites, none of these linking sites refer to ex-premies as a hate group.  --[[User:John Brauns|John Brauns]] 23:09, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-::The fact described in the article is not that the ex-premies are a hate group. Let the reader decide that. What is described is the fact that they have been labeled as such by the organization that is the target of their criticism. That fact is of enough interest to warrant an inclusion in this article, in particular as it is presented as an example that corroborates the thesis on "internet terrorism" presented by the [[CESNUR]] article. Please note that this section of the article presents both side of the coin: anti-cult advocates labelling some NRM's "hate groups" and viceversa.
-::Please also note that the section starts with the follwing text: ''The classification of other groups as a hate group is more controversial and little or no consensus has developed as to whether political, religious or anti-religious movements deserve the label "hate group".''
-:::Very good point - if no such consensus has been established, and in the case of ex-premies, only the target of their criticism is labelling ex-premies as a hate group, then this article should focus on groups where a consensus has been established, and ex-premies should be discussed in the Prem Rawat - criticism article. --[[User:John Brauns|John Brauns]] 23:56, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-I will revert and NPOV the lastest edits.--[[User:Zappaz|Zappaz]] 00:09, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-:::Zappaz, you have not answered my point that it is absurd to repeat serious allegations, even in an NPOV manner, without any undependent corroboration. By your logic any organisation can call their critics a hate group and include that allegation in this article. You say the fact that Elan Vital call ex-premies a hate group is of interest. To whom? Anyone reading this article should expect a serious analysis of genuine hate groups, not repeated attempts by a religious cult to discredit their critics. I will remove the references until you can provide independent corroboration for this serious allegation. --[[User:John Brauns|John Brauns]] 08:00, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-:::::Yes John, if an organization call its critics a hate group in their literature, it would be OK to include that fact in this article, provided there are references. For example, Anton Hein considers Scientology a hate group, and this is stated in the article. --[[User:64.81.88.140|64.81.88.140]] 16:19, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-:::::::True, but there is a difference. Both Anton Hein and Sientology are well known. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 16:23, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-::Zappaz, please note that allegations and opinions have to be attributed. Weasel words like "Some say" are to be avoided according to the guidelines. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 00:33, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-:::You are right, Andries. I removed the text and added a wikilink about [[Cyberstalking]] instead (an article that I contributed to back in September). --[[User:Zappaz|Zappaz]] 00:45, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-::::Zappaz, I do not understand why more than one sentence should be paid to this dispute about an obscure Indian guru in this article. I have to admit that I am to blame for mentioning the Elan Vital dispute here too but in hindsight, more than one sentence seems more than enough.  [[User:Andries|Andries]] 00:49, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-::::::One sentence is too much for such a serious, uncorroborated allegation.--[[User:John Brauns|John Brauns]] 08:00, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-:::::::As I said above, as long as we call this an uncorroborated allegation we are OK. You cannot censor the text because you don't agree with it. Please read [[NPOV#A_simple_formulation]]. --[[User:Zappaz|Zappaz]] 16:09, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-::::::::John Brauns did not say that he deleted it because he did not like it. He said that he deleted it because he pointed to the facts that it was insignificant and that only some followers of an obscure guru consider the premies a hate group, not agreed with by anyone else. Considering these facts, I think it is crazy to spend more than one sentence to this family feud in a general article about hate groups. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 16:17, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-:::::I am afraid that we come to disagree yet again: I find the reference worthy of inclusion as I have expressed above. Let's work together on the rest of the article. I agree that it needs development. Go have a good night sleep and let's continue working on this tomorrow :)--[[User:Zappaz|Zappaz]] 00:55, 28 Nov
-(UTC)
-----
-I have explained myself quite clearly here already. I can understand John Braun's disgust about being labeled as belonging to a hate group, but that does not change anything. The ex-premies have been labeled profusely as such by the target of their criticism, and this explosive cocktail of  [[apostasy]], vitriolic criticism, cyberstalking tactics, internet terrorism against NRMs and the NRMs reaction (defense?) against that is definitively an area of interest for this article. --[[User:Zappaz|Zappaz]] 16:33, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-::Zappaz, your characterisation of ex-premies is simply not true. May I ask why you are contributing to this article? It has been suggested that you have been professionally employed by followers of Prem Rawat to discredit ex-premies. It certainly seems odd that you are active on the Prem Rawat articles, and are keen to produce an article on 'hate groups'. May I ask, what is your area of expertise? --[[User:John Brauns|John Brauns]] 23:53, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-:::::FYI, John, '''the editor that started this whole thing is Andries'''. Check the history. I am not discrediting anyone, and your accussations are unwarranted and frivolous. Please do not join others with these [[conspiracy theories]]. It does not help your case.  --[[User:Zappaz|Zappaz]] 03:20, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-:There is an Islamist group who thinks that the ADL is hate group. Do you think that that should be listed too? There are plenty of obscure groups who consider mainstream groups hate groups. Should they all be mentioned? [[User:Andries|Andries]] 16:47, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-::I am afraid that given current NPOV policy, it will be OK to do so if propertly attributed. --[[User:Zappaz|Zappaz]] 17:10, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-:::So if I put up a website claiming that Wikipedia is a hate group, then I could include that allegation here (properly attributed of course)? Can't you see the absurdity of this? --[[User:John Brauns|John Brauns]] 23:53, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-:Zappaz, labeled profusely, yes, but only by Elan Vital. What if I label everyday the US government as a hate group and make a website. Will I then get a whole paragraph? [[User:Andries|Andries]] 16:41, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-::This is not about an individual. What it is discussed in this section is NRM's and hate group tactics and the passionate discourse surrounding it. This is a societal aspect that needs to be covered in the article, and it is.
-::Andries, pls leave this behind and help me in developing a great article about hate groups. I have expanded on your initial expansion, so let us continue. --[[User:Zappaz|Zappaz]] 17:10, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-I will bring the article again to request for comments again because the there is clearly too much disagreement. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 20:16, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-== Ex-Premies fit the agreed-upon description ==
-Based on the foundational and nominative descriptor, specifically:
-* Dehumanizing or demonizing the target;
-* Conspiracy theories, possibly not well backed up or referenced;
-There is little doubt that the Ex-Premies fit the bill. One need only take a walk through their forum 8 pages, the archives of their earlier forums, and their webpage at www.ex-premie.org to see that they have:
-) utterly dehumanized Elan Vital (insisting that it is a "cult" and referring to their "monitor, lawyers and keepers") instead of people;
-::Richard, you took me to task for not refuting the allegations in your post, so here goes. Calling Elan Vital a cult is not dehumanising or demonising them. EV is listed as a cult in almost all cult lists by experts in the field. Former followers of Rawat, upon leaving, realise we were in a cult - not because ex-premie.org says so, but because we let go of our belief system and know it to be true.--[[User:John Brauns|John Brauns]] 22:36, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-) dehumanized Prem Rawat (insisting that he is personally responsible entirely for everything these people find objectionable) and similarly in a dehumanizing way, rationalizing the unsupported slander and intrusions into his private life. Rawat has undeniably become the focus for their obsession (see "house of Drek" pages).
-::Ex-premies have discussed the oh so human characteristics of Prem Rawat since they first started chatting about him. It is premies who assign super-human characteristics to him. --[[User:John Brauns|John Brauns]] 22:36, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-) assert, without foundation, conspiracies left and right, assuming facts with no evidence other than "ad hoc ergo propter hoc" reasoning.
-::I have no idea what you are talking about here. What conspiracies? --[[User:John Brauns|John Brauns]] 22:36, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-Moreover, one of their members, Tom Gubler, confessed to their agenda under oath. Although I have seen ex-premies insist that the affidavit was obtained under duress, they are dishonest in not admitting that the Court reviewed this withdrawal and explicitly rejected taht withdrawal. Moreover, this was never appealed. It is, as the lawyers say, "res juducata": a thing decided.
-::Tom Gubler has stated on oath that he signed that affidavit without reading it, as he was terrified his premie wife would come home and discover what he had done. I had never heard of Tom Gubler before this incident, and he had never heard of me. The only ex-premie Tom know was John Macgregor. --[[User:John Brauns|John Brauns]] 22:36, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-There is no reasonable doubt that much of the documented speech of the ex-premies is hateful, inciting violence, and encouraging others to the same. Many ex-premies pretend that the purpose of this speech is merely cathartic, and helps them deal with their feelings. However, this is also disingenuous, as many more postings in the forum archives make it clear that the goal is to convince people to leave the practice of Knowledge, to avoid Rawat, and to interfere with the ability of people to listen to and follow his message.
-::There is no evidence that any of the regular contributors to ex-premie.org or the online forums have ever incited hatred or violence. Our goal is to present information on Prem Rawat and if current or prospective followers wish to follow his teachings knowing the facts, then they are free to do so. Elan Vital's goal is to suppress the information we are making available, and this hate group accusation is part of their increasingly desparate agenda. --[[User:John Brauns|John Brauns]] 22:36, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-While they may feel justified in that feeling, they are stuck with the facts, and with the definition. Perhaps if they moved on with their lives, instead of focussing on something that allegedly left, they would not have the hate group label stick so badly.
-[[User:Richard G.|Richard G.]] 22:05, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)(lexy)
-::Richard, why don't you focus on the allegations against Prem Rawat rather than scouring the internet looking for more ways to attack ex-premies? You do know that a former senior officer in Elan Vital (still a premie) admitted that the allegations on ex-premie.org are true, don't you? --[[User:John Brauns|John Brauns]] 22:36, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-:Richard, does your own hatred know no bounds? Ex-premies do not hate premies. We were premies for many years, some of us very recently. We still have many friends who are premies. Ex-premie.org and the forums exist to help premies, not to incite hatred or violence. Calling ex-premies a hate group is absurd, and is clearly a tactic by some premies to discourage remaining premies from reading our sites. The allegation is not supported by any independent body, and should not be in this article. I will continue removing the references until this dispute is looked at by independent Wikipedia contributors. --[[User:John Brauns|John Brauns]] 23:31, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-::Furthermore, in our internet squabbles, many of the tactics of premies, including Elan Vital, towards ex-premies are the tactics of a hate group, but I would not stoop to portray Elan Vital as a hate group on ex-premie.org. A cult, yes, but the nmany independent cult experts also label Elan Vital as a cult. I would like to invite independent reviewers to comment on this, and request a truce until they have done so. --[[User:John Brauns|John Brauns]] 23:47, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-John, you ''never once'' refute a single thing said above. All you do is meekly say "you don't hate premies." That is '''not''' nearly enough. (Lexy) [[User:Richard G.|Richard G.]] 02:50, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-:::Lexy, what makes you an expert on hate-groups? What educational background do you have to define a hate-group? What evidence do you have (other than what appears on Elan Vital's website FAQs or on the One-Reality website) that substantiates calling Ex-premies a hate group?  I noticed that you have also started to define what "Ex-premies" are in the article by the same name.  Ex-premies don't have an ideology, nor have ex-premies ever promoted violence against anyone (especially Prem Rawat and his family).  The individuals who use their names on the ex-premie forum have been especially diligent in making sure no one is allowed to issue personal threats against premies.
-:::Given you have made these attempts to define what it means to have been a former follower of Rawat, I think I deserve an answer to these questions.
-:::Thank you.
-:::[[User:Another Ex-Premie|Another Ex-Premie]] 16:05, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-==Article is now in RfC==
-This article is already in [[Wikipedia:RfC]]. Let's wait and see what other editors have to say. Removing text from the article does not help, as editors will need to see the nature of the dispute. Richard, John: please refrain from adding or removing text for now. Thanks. --[[User:Zappaz|Zappaz]] 02:08, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-Modemac, I would appreciate if you wait until we hear from other editors before unilateraly removing text. The article is in RfC --[[User:Zappaz|Zappaz]] 02:19, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-:Another revert and this article will break the [[Wikipedia:Three_revert_rule]] and will need to go to dispute resolution. Please keep cool and wait to see what other editors have to say before deleting text. Thanks. --[[User:Zappaz|Zappaz]] 02:59, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-Thanks Modemac for the NPOV attempt. I have made a small edit re:Inovigne. Hope it sticks. --[[User:Zappaz|Zappaz]] 20:53, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-I would like to add my voice to the continuing comments about this article. First of all, let me introduce myself. I used to be a follower of Guru Maharaj Ji, who calls himself Prem Rawat these days. Followers of Guru Maharaj Ji were called premies, which makes me an ex-premie. I read the article on Prem Rawat and although I didn't agree with it's perspective, I don't really care that much about it one way or the other. But now I come to this article where I see that simply because I choose not to follow Guru Maharaj Ji anymore I am being considered part of a suspected hate group. How can this be possible? You can't just call people who stop practicing a religion a hate group.
-As far as I know, there is no organised group of ex-premies. There is a website, ex-premie.org, which as far as I can tell is run by one or two people. There is also a forum on which all kinds of people post on. These people present a widely varying cross-section of society and have very differing views. I also post there on occasion. I want to state very clearly that I don't have anything against premies and would never do anything to prevent them from practicing their religion. I enjoy posting on the forum and appreciate ex-premie.org only because it helps me to understand more about a part of my past which I was troubled about and wanted to investigate further. What does this have to do in any way with hate groups?
-I think I know what a hate group is. I have friends who ended up in the hospital at the hands of Nazi skinheads and very nearly was attacked myself on two occasions. By including ex-premies in this article, not only are you falsely demonizing anyone who decides not to follow Rawat, but you are making a joke out of a very serious topic.
-I hope my words will bring some sensibility to the writers of this article. -- Drapadi
-:Drapadi, please note that this article does not state that the ex-premies are a hate group. What is stated is that the target of their criticism (the organizations that support PR and followers) label them as a hate group.  It seems that other [[NRM]]s have felt the same level of intense criticism and have also labeled their critics a hate group. --[[User:Zappaz|Zappaz]] 22:47, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-::Zappaz, by mentioning Elan Vital's false allegation out of context, in an article that should be about genuine, universally recognised, hate groups, some readers will assume (without investigating further) that there is some truth to the allegation. There is of course no truth to the allegation, although the behaviour of some supporters of Prem Rawat on Wikipedia is increasingly leading to the conclsuion that they really are a hate group. Prem Rawat's supporters have made their allegation in the Prem Rawat Criticism article where the context is fully explained, and there it should stay. --[[User:John Brauns|John Brauns]] 23:18, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)