Still doesn't answer why the hate for Hawke, who acts on limited information in a reasonable fashion.
I don't hate on Hawke for that, and many Dalish supporters I've spoken with don't hate him for it either. What I understand is the point of criticism is that Hawke's approaching from a point of ignorance is taken as gospel truth based on the hearsay of Merethari on the part of some some of the forumites that are debated against.
I can get that Hawke can be roleplayed to side with Merethari over Merrill, I did that once in a rivalmance.
I actually think the main point of contention is that we are all merely human, and after a few years of debating some of us on all sides of any debate, elves, mage/templar, Celene/Gaspard/Briala, whatever, that some of us will disagree with the person we're debating with because we expect that we'll disagree with them because they're the one making the point. And when that happens, communication and civilized discourse breaks down, we get circular arguments, things get said in the heat of passion, or typed in this case, and both sides dig in harder and feel vindicated and more in the right, and neither side has truly read the whole argument of the other party, or flat out miss the point as an earlier point sticks out and they react to that and end up taking it out of context since they didn't read the whole post.
I don't think there's much hate for Hawke in this regard, just us posters on the forum being human, and all the glorious flaws that come with it.