Talk:Hate site

Complete re-write

I have completely deleted and re-written this article, and I hope I have reached NPOV. Originally, I meant to create it as a /temp page, but it saved to the main article. I will re-add the cleanup tag, as my version still requires improvement. Autopilots 22:36, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Should we be linking to hate sites? If someone is looking for examples he can more than easily find them by himself. -- WojPob

In my view, linking to sites on this page is actually POV itself. ComputerJoe 20:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to say I agree. While it is obvious the KKK is pro-hate, a member of the KKK might not think that.

We should link to them as an example to the reader, and we should state that they are examples --mexaguil 00:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Since this is such a controversial topic, we as "NPOVians" can not judge what sites are "hate sites" and those that are not. As neutral observers, we can only report on which sites are "claimed to be" promoting hate, and not pass judgment.

Personally, I deplore sites like Stormfront, though I am appreciative that they have an "opposing viewpoint" section, and as a proponent of free-speech, I will defend their right to say what they do. (Also, I like their fitness tips, on their fitness related sub-forum) The external links sections is composed of "claims," specifically, the words "said to," which imply impartiality. I therefore vote that the neutrality tag be removed from the external links. That said, the article as a whole, as I have written it, is inferior to wikipedia standards, and is in severe need of peer review. Autopilots 09:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

the article tries to avoid describing with any detail

Tags

This page is currently nothing more than a POV rant as to how to deal with hate sites. I've put it on Pages Needing Attention.

Hate Site

Question - Only white hate groups have been listed isn't there Black hate groups also in United States? Some Blacks hate whites and so do Hispanics but I don't see those sites listed.152.163.101.6 04:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Only three of the most notorious sites are listed. We could list the Nation of Islam, which many consider to be a hate group, but I don't want to get into a battle over who is and is not a hate group. -- Mwalcoff 23:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to my life. I've been meaning to overhaul this article for a long time. However, this is such a controversial topic, my own bias opinion gets in the way everytime I want to edit it. What I think this article really needs is avowed racists (this declaration is in itself POV, though I'm willing to risk that on a talk page) to edit the article, starting an edit war, as I believe an edit war between -us and them- could substantially help this article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Autopilots (talk • contribs) 05:08, June 1, 2006

External Links

If one exists, so must the other. If we list sites considered "anti-hate," then, in order to be balanced, we must list "hate" sites. Or we could have neither, which may be preferable, especially if this will start an edit war. Autopilots 05:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Another hate site to be added to the list.

Hello, this is a funny hate site about turks and sometimes about jews.

http://www.ian.cc/inicio.php

It's written in Spanish, my language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.136.154.175 (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Definition

Hey,

I'm having trouble rewriting the definition of this article to make sense and would like some help. In order to prevent any bias, I would like to propose a completely hypothetical and unrealistic (and therefore bias-free) thought experiment in order to come to a conclusion about the best wording.

Imagine if you could, a set of people who concieve a group of words as gibberish, while another set considers them to be perfectly intelligable. Niether group is right or wrong; the first uses the term gibberwocky to refer to it; the second group, the term Languish. If we had an article on gibberwocky, that stated it's objective form as such: "Gibberwocky is language percieved to be gibberish", would we then word the article Gibberworky website, "A Gibberwocky website is a website that uses gibberwocky", even if it is a site created by the second group? This seems somewhat silly when I word it like this, but adding the term percieve to the website article also seems redundant given the definition. Any thoughts?

I apoliogise if people think I am joking, but I am quite serious. I asked 3 other Wikipedians in person and all I got was biased responses about hate speech, so consider purely the hypothetical, because it's language here, and not the topics that are important. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)