Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-white


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. This has been withdrawn but if serious imporvements don't happen quickly I predict another discussion Spartaz Humbug! 05:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

hate crimes against white people (n&eacute;e Anti-white)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article is a thinly-veiled attempt to push a particular POV. For example, it claims that criticizing "ethnocentric elements within the white commmunity" is a form of "anti-white" racism. It's worth pointing out that the article's author, Wittsun, uses "ethnocentric" as a euphemism for things like this; see his comments on this talk page. The article sites 3 specific events and uses them to establish a general trend of "anti-white policies"? Obvously a major stretch; in short, this is an essay, not an article. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Stonemason89 is an activist poster with an ax to grind. 'Anti-white' is a legitimate entry which has been more than adequately referenced.--Wittsun (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve - I originally tagged it for refs, and was about to tag it for neologism, until I did some hunting around online. The term "anti-white" appears to be well established in WP:Reliable sources, such as in some of the citations given: The Guardian, for example, is a left-of-center British newspaper, and strongly anti-racist. Let's improve the article, and remove POV wording and unreliable sources. Empty Buffer (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "anti-white" is an adjective, and not denotative by itself. What's the noun phrase? Uncle G (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Anti-white bias", maybe? "Anti-white racism"? There are actually two things talked about in the article at the moment: simple bias (e.g. media, policy etc.), and violent aggression. Neither title covers both topics well. Empty Buffer (talk) 20:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually what is talked about in one part of the article actually goes by the name of reverse discrimination, for which we already have an impoverished article (compared to what has been written by the world on the subject). This is partly the point.  Pick a title that isn't denotative of an actual concept (or person, place, event, or thing) and one is likely to get original research by synthesis, as one ends up with a mish-mash of unrelated factoids that just happen to use a particular adjective.  reverse discrimination is sorely lacking, and if one wants to improve the encyclopaedia's coverage of it, and the world's several and various views of it, then that is the place to write content, not a page with a non-subject title. Similarly, if you want to break out racism in the United States then in fact the subject, as discussed in sources, is hate crimes against white people.  There's a fair amount to discuss, from U.S. law enforcement surveys, through questions that people have raised of whether enforcement is even, and through whether it constitutes racism (which, unsurprisingly, people differ upon), to the notion put forward by some people that there's no such thing at all. I suggest that your solution here is to take out the reverse discrimination parts of this article (and focus your efforts there for writing about that subject) leaving the crimes, to rename this article from its non-subject title to hate crimes against white people, to refactor, and to start putting in some analysis and explanation instead of just growing a laundry list that is largely uninformative to readers (and will only &mdash; I speak from long experience. &mdash; result in an AFD re-nomination a year from now).  Uncle G (talk) 22:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Gulagism has a certain ring to it. Most of the popular frame-words, eg 'racism' and 'discrimination' are attributable to the Frankfurt School--Wittsun (talk) 06:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're not going to get very far in any discussion on Wikipedia if you accuse other editors of "gulagism". Stonemason89 (talk) 14:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge or rename Changing my mind on this one: since the term "anti-white" is used in two senses here, it's best to move the referenced hate crime content to its own article, and merge the rest of the referenced stuff (e.g. media bias in UK) to reverse discrimination, as Uncle G suggests. Empty Buffer (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Reverse discrimination content now copied to new section Reverse discrimination. Empty Buffer (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep&mdash;The Racism article is already overly long for a merge, and there is enough scholarly material on this specific topic that it is worth expanding.&mdash;RJH (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree on merging. The problem being that the concept of 'racism' itself has traditionally served as a vehicle for anti-white policies. For example: "The response of the authorities to rising levels of racist violence targeting the natives has been to increase crackdowns on "racism" – by the white natives. In 2005 the Norwegian parliament – with the support of 85% of MPs – passed a new Discrimination Act, prepared by then Minister of Integration from the Conservative Party, Erna Solberg, who had earlier called for the establishment of a sharia council in Norway."--Wittsun (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Making a list of unconnected crimes against white people and trying to turn it into an encyclopedia article is WP:SYNTH at its worst. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The crimes listed cite sources supporting the assertion that they were solely motivated by racism: that's the connection. Could you please expand on where you see synthesis? There is a possible case for a split into two articles, however. Empty Buffer (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Where are the sources that link one crime to the others? Without that, it's synthesis. ("Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources.") The article joins A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by any of the sources. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But all the sources explicitly state that they were racially motivated, so I'm afraid I still don't see the synthesis. Empty Buffer (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge — Correct heading should be "reverse discrimination." Merge with that or delete if not possible. This is a trojan horse pseudo-heading for right wing propaganda, mark my words. Carrite (talk) 03:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What is your take on antisemitism? Should it be merged on the same grounds? And if not, why not? The problem with 'reverse discrimination' is that it implies a justification for anti-white policies; or is it common to describe Palestinian terrorism as 'reverse zionism'? --Wittsun (talk) 08:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You are comparing apples and oranges. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - per the concerns raised by Malik Shabazz and Uncle G . -Oescp (talk) 05:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge with Anti-Europeanism/rewrite. Also, there are already seperate articles such as Francophobia and Anti-British sentiment which describes specific cases of antagonism, so this article is quite redundant. A vehicle for POV pushing that lacks any real analysis. -Oescp (talk) 04:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would also like to point out that we don't have an article on Anti-black. Why, then, must we need an article on "Anti-white"? Stonemason89 (talk) 14:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point that we can turn this into an article about an actual subject by using the rename tool to change the title, and using the edit tool to take out stuff that overlaps reverse discrimination and to add stuff on the subject of hate crimes against white people, transforming this from a largely useless laundry list of hate crimes into an article providing sourced analysis of the topic, which there do exist sources for. I'll start you off. Uncle G (talk) 01:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * antisemitism is listed. Anti-Black could also be added. --Wittsun (talk) 10:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Withdraw nomination, with some reservations - The name change is a good development, and most (if not all) of the POV-pushing that was present in the original article has been removed by this point. Thus, I no longer think this article necessarily needs to be deleted. I still have mixed feelings about it; namely, that this article is bound to become a target for POV-pushers and vandals (which is why I think it will need to be watched carefully by several editors to make sure this won't happen, and I also think it should be put on the pending-changes system for the same reason), that the article still has a very limited scope (it's overly focused on the US and UK; surely there needs to be some mention of South African farm attacks in here?), and that it doesn't mention white-on-white hate crimes (which do exist in some jurisdictions; see Talk:Hate_crime for more information). However, all of these problems are fixable, and my initial reasons for taking this article to AFD no longer apply, so I have no choice but to withdraw my nomination. I'm not going to close the discussion myself, because I don't think the other participants in the dicussion have reached a consensus yet, and I'm also not sure whether this really deserves its own article or whether it would be better covered as a subsection of Hate crimes. Hopefully allowing this discussion to continue the full 7 days will allow a consensus to be reached. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The scope that you propound is not implicit in either title or content, note. Nor is it contained in sources.  The limitation is one that you are imposing yourself.  As mentioned above and on the talk page, I've started you off in a direction that I, as an ordinary editor, think can be continued profitably, with more sourced analysis and more viewpoints and aspects of the subject and, yes, more than just black-on-white.  (There are sources that discuss whether it is a misattribution to lump, as some people have, hate crimes against Hispanics in with hate crimes against white people, for example.  There are also sources that present arguments that crimes against whites are motivated by economics not hate.  And there are sources that oppose.  RJHall is quite right that there is serious discussion to be had.)  The best thing that you and anyone else can do here is work on the article to provide these.  Uncle G (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Something - I think, under its new title, there is an encyclopedic topic here, but I don't believe that this article is it. My suggestion would be to stubbify and start over, taking care to use mainstream reliable sources. --B (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.