Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hate crimes against white people


 * 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   no consensus. We have a consensus that the article should be either merged or deleted, but don't agree which is more appropriate. So while there's no consensus for deletion, this discussion is a sufficient basis for an editor to merge whatever content is considered useful to another appropriate article.  Sandstein  07:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hate crimes against white people
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-encyclopedic essay filled with statements by obscure people nobody even bothers to create redlinks to; just an excuse for poorly-sourced whining by editors, many (not all) of whom have suspect histories in racial areas. Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  23:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Hate crime; this is a POVFORK. Equally, delete would be a reasonable outcome for the same reason. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's a starter article that has plenty more available in sources for expansion upon the exact sbuject, would that editors stopped filling it with laundry lists and started consulting properly analytical sources. See the previous discussion. Uncle G (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I hadn't seen that earlier AfD under the different name. I will look at this again; the article does need fixing badly though, as the previous AfD pointed out. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm still going with Merge to Hate crime; there may well be an article to be written here, but it would best be done by starting again from scratch; this article is 90% soapboxing, original research, WP:UNDUE and POV-pushing. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge with Hate crime unless something distinctive about this kind of hate crime that does not hold true for other types of racial hate crime can be sourced; if so, change the name. We do have such articles as Antisemitism and Anti-Japanese sentiment, and an article discussing anti-white sentiment would not necessarily be out of place. The Rhymesmith (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC) Merge into larger article on anti-white racism or Keep The Rhymesmith (talk) 04:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It was foolish name choices like that that got us the first AFD discussion. It would be foolishness to go back.  And yes, there's plenty distinctive about this.  Read the first AFD discussion, and of course the talk page, for things about this specific subject that this article doesn't even discuss, yet. Uncle G (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Anti-white" is an absurd name choice (as "Anti-black", or "Anti-Jew" would also be). I have read the talk page and the first AfD debate, and see nothing that changes my sentiment that an article discussing racism against whites is not in principle something we should not have. Looking at the present article, I find a list of incidents of hate crimes against whites (which is not necessary; there are innumerable hate crimes of every kind of description), and academic commentary that hate crimes against whites are akin to any other kind of hate crime. I do not see the need for an article about hate crimes against whites, insofar as I cannot see how this kind of hate crime is differentiated from any other kind of hate crime to the extent that a new article is necessary. The academic sources on the talk page illustrate demographic patters of violence that would enrich the general article on hate crimes; I have yet to see why specific hate crimes against white people deserve their own article. We do not have explicit articles about hate crimes against any other racial group (or any group, at all, that I can see). I support an article on racism in general against whites (Stereotypes of white people being a start), if sourcing can be found (which it can). The Rhymesmith (talk) 01:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you've overlooked an important point that I made in the last AFD discussion. I make it again.  This specific class of hate crime (which isn't an invention of Wikipedia, notice.  It's how the FBI breaks things down.) is specifically called out in academic commentary because it is the one subcategory that is highly controversial.  There are several points of view that are about this, specific, subcategory of hate crimes as a whole:
 * The mainstream viewpoint describes hate crime legislation as it is, noting that it is colour-blind.
 * A significant, scholarly, minority viewpoint is that hate crime legislation should be something other; in particular that it should exclude this specific subcategory of hate crimes, on the grounds that to be defined as a hate crime there should be a minority-to-majority power relationship. There's a halfway point on the path to this, exemplified by Barbara Perry, of the University of Ontario Institute of Technology, who defines hate crimes primarily in terms of power relationships, although I've not come across her espousing the notion that minority-on-majority hate crimes are actually invalid, albeit that she cites some others who do.  This is a viewpoint that seems to be more of a U.K. one.  Paul Gordon, of the Runnymede Trust, espoused it in the 1980s, after a 1981 Home Office report, for example.  ("&hellip; it is only by recognizing the nature of racially-motivated attacks on black people that one can even begin to tackle the problem.  To confuse such attacks with ordinary criminal attacks, or to claim, in the absence of any such evidence, that attacks by Black people on White people are 'racial' is to render the concept of racism quite meaningless.")
 * A significant, scholarly (to varying degree), minority viewpoint is that hate crime statistics should be something other; in particular that they are falsely reporting this specific subcategory of hate crimes, either because they are including crimes that really stem from other motivations (such as economics) or because they do/don't include crimes against racial categories that are arguably "not white". Glayde Whitney has espoused the viewpoint that hate crimes against whites are effectively underreported because Hispanics are not treated as "white" victims but are treated as "white" perpetrators, for example.  Jacobs and Potter report, and are cited by others (such as K. W. K&ouml;ll) as one source for, the fact that people question whether economically-motivated crimes against white people are being miscategorised as hate crimes against white people.
 * Other non-scholarly minority viewpoints are the ones professed by racialist extremists of various stripes (including POV-pushers at Wikipedia, alas) on the World Wide Web.
 * The last is not a particularly good choice as a way to start an article, but you really don't have a leg to stand on with complaints that a start-class article should not exist because it contains the first, mainstream, viewpoint. That's a fairly absurd approach to this subject.  And I reiterate for emphasis, that you'll find that it is this specific subcategory that is addressed in particular in  scholarship.  (The reason for this is the obvious one.  The second to fourth viewpoints above cause people to expound the first viewpoint in order to counter them.  Jacobs and Potter expound the mainstream viewpoint in opposition to the minority viewpoints.  So do Altschiller and several others.)  It's not addressed as stereotyping.  It's not addressed as racism.  It's addressed directly as the category of hate crimes against white people. Uncle G (talk) 03:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I should probably clarify what I mean (particularly in my comment below, to your "terrible nomination, there" comment); either you're misreading me, or (more likely), I failed to express myself clearly. Given that we, at present, do not seem to have articles covering hate crimes against specific groups, and that we do have articles about racism in general against specific groups, and that we have a rather facile article about anti-white racism in general, it strikes me that this article should probably be merged either into the original hate crimes article, or (I would prefer this), into a general article about anti-white racism (which would seem to be antecendent to more specific articles about various aspects of anti-white racism). That being said, without a merger, I don't support deleting the page. If the article remains, however, I don't think it should consist of a list of hate crimes, but rather, an exposition of the academic analysis. The Rhymesmith (talk) 05:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A terrible nomination, there, Orangemike. Next time, please put in the effort to find out what the sources cited actually are.  The fact that prose doesn't wikilink author's names is (a) a good thing that removes the temptation to write biographies just to fill them in and (b) not an indicator in the slightest of the reliability of the sources or the properness of the analyses and viewpoints held.  If you'd actually put in the effort to consult the sources cited &mdash; which are, after all, cited in order for you the reader to do that very thing &mdash; you'd have found things like an Oxford University Press book written by the Warren E. Burger Professor of Constitutional Law and the Courts at New York University School of Law, and an NYU Press book written by an associate professor in the Criminology and Criminal Justice Department at the University of Maryland.  This superficial and cursory approach to checking out sources, which seems to consist only of looking for a link in the prose and not even looking at the book jackets, is not a good one.  Sources are cited to be read. Uncle G (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply - What is so terrible about it? It's been created and used as a WP:COATRACK for racebaiting and fearmongering. The text misrepresents the alleged sources, and it's generally a WP:SOAPBOX for folks like User:Wittsun to push their POV.
 * That hate crimes against whites exist and have been analyzed in academia is not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether or not such hate crimes are worthy of coverage in Wikipedia (I believe they are), and, if so, whether they are deserving of their own article independent of either the main article on hate crimes or the article that is presently 'covering' anti-white racism (I am not convinced). The Rhymesmith (talk) 01:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I do not see anything wrong with creating such article, just as with Violence against LGBT people or Hate crimes against black people. It might be OK to merge with something, but other articles (like Hate crime) are already too big, and the AfD nomination is not a proper place to discuss merging. Keep and then discuss merging.Biophys (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But we don't have an article on Hate crimes against black people, and if one was created, it would probably be deleted or merged promptly (as I pointed out below). As far as anti-LGBT violence goes, the reason we have a separate article for that is because anti-LGBT violence is different enough from other hate crimes in order to deserve its own article. The reason anti-LGBT violence is considered distinct enough to be treated separately is because 1. it's motivated by sexual orientation, while other hate crimes are usually motivated by race, ethnicity, or religion, and 2. because not all jurisdictions consider anti-LGBT violence to be a hate crime (the USA didn't consider it to be a hate crime on a federal level until very recently, for example). As far as anti-white (or anti-black, or anti-Hispanic) violence goes, it's not distinct enough from other types of hate crimes to warrant separate treatment. That's why I'm standing by my earlier suggestion to merge. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Trojan horse POV push. Carrite (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What POV do you mean? The existence of racism is a matter of fact. Biophys (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The existence of racism is a matter of fact, yes. However, that's not the POV Carrite was referring to. Many of the contributors to this article (including the original creator, Wittsun, as well as at least one of the IP editors) have been using this article as a soapbox to advance a fearmongering "watch out white people, you're under attack, the minorities hate you" POV. Wittsun, in fact, has been banned from editing on race/ethnicity/religion-related topics for precisely this sort of POV pushing. Personally, I think having a separate article on hate crimes against white people has little purpose other than to scare white people into believing they are being persecuted by nonwhites. Again, we do not have, nor do we need to have, separate articles on hate crimes against black people, hate crimes against Hispanics, or hate crimes against Asian-Americans. Any such articles would be promptly merged or deleted as POV forks, and I think this one should, too. There's really no major difference between anti-white hate crimes and other types of hate crimes. If hate crimes against white people were much more common than other types of hate crimes (which they are not), then I could see why we might have a separate article about them. As it stands, there's no reason to have a separate article on this topic, and I stand by my earlier suggestion to merge. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge to Hate Crime. We don't have a separate article on Hate crimes against black people or Hate crimes against Hispanics, so why on Earth do we need a separate article about hate crimes against white people? Stonemason89 (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Orange Mike, may I ask why you placed an AFD warning tag on Wittsun's talk page? He is currently topic-banned from making race, ethnicity, or religion-related edits. As a result, his topic ban prevents him from contributing to this AFD discussion. Perhaps you should remove the AFDwarning tag from Wittsun's talk page; otherwise, you may end up being accused of trying to "bait" Wittsun into violating his topic ban. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * reply - it was an automated notification. Notification ≠ permission to violate the topic ban. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, but consider merge into Hate crime. The article itself is fine - it covers a legitimate topic, and is fairly neutrally written and well referenced. But I'm concerned about the appearance of bias; given that this article itself notes that in the United States, only 20% of hate crimes are directed at white people, shouldn't we have articles on hate crimes against black people, hate crimes against Asians, and other groups? Perhaps that's an example of WP:Systemic bias, given that I'm guessing our authors are predominantly white, but it still doesn't look good. I'd like to see this article merged into a more general one about hate crimes. Robofish (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * On further thought (and given FormerIP's comment below), I don't think we can keep this article. The 'controversy' section is acceptable and worth keeping, but the 'incidents' section has too many issues with POV and synthesis. I still think a merge is the best solution, but failing that, delete. Robofish (talk) 13:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Carrite. The page is clearly contentious and was created and largely edited by a user who is now topic-banned in this area. Consider merging any material that might be worthwhile into Hate crime, but with caution. Some of the material seems to represent a far-right POV (for example, citing the case of Walter Chamberlain, which is part of the background to the 2001 Oldham race riots and is considered by many to have been hyped-up by far-right activists; suggesting that the murder of Eugene Terre'Blanche brought some long-ignored "issue" to international attention; characterising the Beltway sniper killings as racially motivated, which the article covering them does not). Taking out this material, the article would be more-or-less reduced to a "controversy" section, which would not add up to a worthwhile article, IMO. --FormerIP (talk) 11:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Soapbox POV platform. The incidents section is a hot mess, with not all of the incidents actually being described as hate crimes. I'm not sure that there's anything to merge here. AniMate 05:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with Carrite. MtD (talk) 19:56, 17 August 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.