User:LokiTheLiar/How to cover hate groups

{essay|WP:HATEGROUPS|WP:HATE|interprets=the neutral point of view policy}

Many editors have basic impressions of core Wikipedia policy that differs somewhat from the actual text of the policy. In most cases, these misconceptions are very close to what the policy instructs, so the misconception is not noticed.

However, as part of its mission, Wikipedia will occasionally have to cover groups which have racism, sexism, or other forms of bigotry as part of their core mission. When covering these groups, naive interpretations of core Wikipedia policies, and particular the WP:NPOV, are not only not very close to the policy instructs, but can actually instruct the direct opposite of what a surface level impression of them might suggest.

What is a hate group?
To clarify, this essay is only about groups where bigotry is their core mission or a major part of their mission. It's not about groups that merely are bigoted, or have some coverage saying that they're bigoted. We're talking about the Ku Klux Klan here, not the FLDS church.

Principle 1: If the sources are clear, the article should be too
Let's say you have a group which all the sources say, clearly, is a neo-Nazi group. Their local paper calls them Nazis, in clear language. The New York Times calls them fascists. We have sourcing from the SPLC calling them a hate group and sourcing documenting them saying racist slurs during a protest.

In a situation like this, where the reliable sourcing is very one-sided and overwhelmingly clear, it's important to be clear about it in the article. As WP:NPOV says:

Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources

If the only significant viewpoint published by reliable sources is "they are Nazis", then the only viewpoint we should represent is "they are Nazis". Remember, NPOV is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus: other policies like MOS:LABEL or WP:PUBLICFIGURE do not supercede our obligation to not insert bias not in the sources.

Principle 2: If the sources are not clear, or are divided, represent both POVs fairly
Let's say you have a group for which the sources are divided into two camps.


 * Camp one, which is somewhat larger, comprises a lot of mainstream and left-leaning newsorgs, and maybe an academic article or two. These sources say clearly that the group is homophobic, in those words.
 * Camp two, which is somewhat smaller, comprises some right-leaning newsorgs as well as a few opinion pieces in reliable sources. These sources say that the group merely stands for "family values", and some deny explicitly that it's homophobic.

In a case like this, it would be inappropriate to call the group "homophobic" in Wikivoice. But also it would not be appropriate to label them exclusively as a "family values" group or to not mention the accusation at all, especially in view of the fact the majority of the sources call this group homophobic. What to do in this situation?

Usually, the appropriate language is something along the lines of:

"The Example Group is often accused of homophobia. It denies this, and instead says that it is "in support of family values"."

If one camp or the other has some especially prominent voice you may want to quote them by name. Similarly, if one camp or the other includes some very well known newsorg like the New York Times you may also want to mention that source's reporting by name. Something like:

"The Example Group is often accused of homophobia, and reporting by the New York Times says that they "are vocally in support of making homosexuality illegal". It denies that it is homophobic, and instead says that it is "in support of family values"."

Principle 3: A bare denial is not usually a reliable source
Let's say you have a group that's pretty clearly misogynistic. It's got lots of reliable academic sources saying so and listing evidence. In that pile of articles, there's one or two from newsorgs that have reached out to them for comment, where they, of course, deny being misogynistic.

You don't have to include that denial in the article. See WP:MANDY for further details, but in brief, the group themselves don't have any special privilege by the rules of WP:V as a source on themselves. Just like you don't have to include any random quote by any random person in a given article, you don't need to quote the group's denial in the article.

Now, there are some circumstances which would warrant including the denial in the article, such as:


 * If the whole article is about the denial, that's a point in its favor: it means that newsorgs thought the denial was notable.
 * If the denial is widely covered, that's a point in its favor for the same reason.
 * If the newsorgs that cover it list the evidence for the denial at length (other than merely pointing out that there's little to none), that's a strong point in its favor, because now the newsorg doesn't just think the denial is notable, it thinks it's credible.
 * If the newsorg covers stories that stem from or support the denial (like evidence being uncovered or the group suing someone for libel), that's also a point in favor of including the denial, depending on how relevant the other story is to the article.

But just a bare denial of hatefulness in an article that's otherwise about how hateful the group is shouldn't be included in the article by the rules of WP:NPOV.

PS. If the group instead accepts the label, then that is relevant because now that means the group doesn't regard the label as pejorative, and so guidelines like MOS:LABEL no longer apply.