Talk:Hate speech

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hate speech 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: 1 year

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Hate speech. 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 speech at the Reference desk.

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 articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

LGBT studies

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

Philosophy: Social and political High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Social and political philosophy

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 articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Freedom of speech High‑importance

	Freedom of speech portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech 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.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from Hate speech was copied or moved into Hate speech actions by country. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Anderson, Luvell; Barnes, Michael (2022). "Hate Speech". In Zalta, E. N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2022 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.

"Theories of hate speech" section was a mess.[edit]

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)[reply]

Is Hate Speech 1 word or 2?[edit]

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)[reply]

Red herring. _signed,Willondon (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Gender, Race and Computing[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 September 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Racoon dolphin (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Erickgulyan, NavyBear314.

— Assignment last updated by NavyBear314 (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hate speech is not just a phrase with a legal meaning, it is also 2 English words with English meanings...[edit]

I.e. in English, a hate speech can very well be a speech about how much you hate bitter melon... and when I speak English, I often vocally produce hate speeches about how much I hate bitter melon. 101.119.171.90 (talk) 10:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll treat this as a serious comment about improving the article, even if a couple of your other edits seem less serious. Your argument is a kind of etymological fallacy, since the phrase "hate speech" has a more specific meaning than just "hate" and "speech" combined. Hate speech is not any hateful speech, but the meaning of the phrase "hate speech" is limited to the definition given in the article. We can see the same change in meaning in other set phrases. For instance, if some women are waiting in line, the first woman in line is not the first lady.

You might also want to read the talk page sections The scope of the definition and Is Hate Speech 1 word or 2? that discuss similar questions. Sjö (talk) 15:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My comment is a serious one and for someone to think thst those 2 words cannot mean what they should is a fallacy. Likewise I believe the first lady in a line of ladies is indeed the first lady. Absolutely. Now imagine if governments were to disallow anyone to be a first lady? That would be very sexist to force the head of every line to be men... it would mean no ladies could be in line as, when a man is finished being first in line the lady would run afoul of the law. Same with hate speeches. I absolutely should have the right to make as many speeches "hate speeches" about how much I hate bitter melon without restriction. Hate speech is 2 words. So is dwarf planet and other silly "hijacked combinations of words". 120.19.139.66 (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just an elaboration, first lady to someone who has nothing to do with the USA means what you would think it means, the lady that is first. Not something to do with a president. A person of colour also seems to imply there are colorless people to those who are not from the USA. Perhaps such phrases that become ambiguous with normal English should be capitalized or hyphenated... or they will forever be ambiguous. 120.19.139.66 (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford Encyclopedic Definition[edit]

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)[reply]

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 Hate speech is a concept that many people find intuitively easy to grasp, while at the same time many others deny it is even a coherent concept; 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 - There is no single definition of what constitutes "hate" or "disparagement". Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country already covers what you're trying to add in a more neutral tone. --Aquillion (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]