Talk:Hate site
Page contents not supported in other languages.
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)
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)[reply]
the article tries to avoid describing with any detail
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hello, this is a funny hate site about turks and sometimes about jews.
It's written in Spanish, my language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.136.154.175 (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]