647:, 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.
716:, 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.
490:, 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.
399:"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.
545:— 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
712:, 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,
461:, espoused it in the 1980s, after a 1981 Home Office report, for example. ("… 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.")
404:. 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 (
772:'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.
821:. 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
477:
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. Köll) as one source for, the fact that
456:
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
540:
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
504:
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
513:
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
48:. 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.
585:
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
Knowledge (XXG) (I believe they are), and, if so, whether they are deserving of their own article independent of either
457:
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
276:
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.
384:
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.
175:
541:
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 — which are, after all, cited in order for you the reader to
206:
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.
847:
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
472:
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".
401:
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
486:
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
879:
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
169:
342:
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
912:
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.
708:
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,
481:
Other non-scholarly minority viewpoints are the ones professed by racialist extremists of various stripes (including POV-pushers at
Knowledge (XXG), alas) on the World Wide Web.
130:
103:
98:
833:, 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.
107:
90:
883:, 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
135:
291:
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.
230:
891:
brought some long-ignored "issue" to international attention; characterising the
Beltway sniper killings as racially motivated, which the article covering them
315:; 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,
76:
895:). 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. --
518:. 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.
691:
190:
157:
94:
478:
people question whether economically-motivated crimes against white people are being miscategorised as hate crimes against white people.
17:
933:
916:
904:
869:
842:
801:
781:
760:
725:
703:
677:
656:
634:
603:
558:
527:
499:
417:
394:
375:
326:
298:
286:
271:
245:
219:
60:
151:
323:
295:
268:
86:
66:
147:
614:
197:
948:
36:
822:
744:
644:
625:) are already too big, and the AfD nomination is not a proper place to discuss merging. Keep and then discuss merging.
618:
426:
class of hate crime (which isn't an invention of
Knowledge (XXG), notice. It's how the FBI breaks things down.) is
929:
748:
830:
591:
405:
826:
947:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
599:
523:
413:
371:
356:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
163:
777:
756:
721:
652:
347:
892:
884:
422:
Then you've overlooked an important point that I made in the last AFD discussion. I make it again. This
925:
888:
773:
752:
717:
699:
648:
630:
569:
887:
and is considered by many to have been hyped-up by far-right activists; suggesting that the murder of
796:
320:
292:
265:
214:
573:
572:
for racebaiting and fearmongering. The text misrepresents the alleged sources, and it's generally a
595:
519:
409:
367:
352:
183:
695:
626:
514:
specific articles about various aspects of anti-white racism). That being said, without a merger,
900:
865:
838:
849:
316:
913:
673:
554:
495:
390:
282:
241:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
790:
789:- it was an automated notification. Notification ≠ permission to violate the topic ban. --
458:
208:
751:, so why on Earth do we need a separate article about hate crimes against white people?
474:
350:, and an article discussing anti-white sentiment would not necessarily be out of place.
51:
896:
861:
834:
464:
A significant, scholarly (to varying degree), minority viewpoint is that hate crime
769:
709:
669:
577:
550:
491:
386:
343:
278:
237:
124:
587:
880:
818:
740:
622:
336:
312:
256:
448:
A significant, scholarly, minority viewpoint is that hate crime legislation
468:
should be something other; in particular that they are falsely reporting
613:. I do not see anything wrong with creating such article, just as with
687:
621:. It might be OK to merge with something, but other articles (like
941:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
568:- What is so terrible about it? It's been created and used as a
441:
The mainstream viewpoint describes hate crime legislation as it
509:
have articles about racism in general against specific groups,
768:: Orange Mike, may I ask why you placed an AFD warning tag on
592:
the article that is presently 'covering' anti-white racism
408:
being a start), if sourcing can be found (which it can).
120:
116:
112:
452:
something other; in particular that it should exclude
380:
It was foolish name choices like that that got us the
182:
434:. There are several points of view that are about
196:
263:would be a reasonable outcome for the same reason.
829:, and other groups? Perhaps that's an example of
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
951:). No further edits should be made to this page.
432:the one subcategory that is highly controversial
430:called out in academic commentary because it is
8:
363:into larger article on anti-white racism or
231:list of Crime-related deletion discussions
225:
856:is the best solution, but failing that,
229:: This debate has been included in the
686:What POV do you mean? The existence of
438:subcategory of hate crimes as a whole:
74:
743:. We don't have a separate article on
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
73:
24:
516:I don't support deleting the page
445:, noting that it is colour-blind.
823:hate crimes against black people
745:Hate crimes against black people
645:Hate crimes against black people
643:But we don't have an article on
619:Hate crimes against black people
87:Hate crimes against white people
77:Articles for deletion/Anti-white
67:Hate crimes against white people
588:the main article on hate crimes
359:) 23:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
259:; this is a POVFORK. Equally,
1:
749:Hate crimes against Hispanics
615:Violence against LGBT people
934:19:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
917:05:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
905:11:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
870:13:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
843:23:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
802:16:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
782:15:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
761:15:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
726:15:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
704:23:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
678:21:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
657:15:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
635:19:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
604:01:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
559:00:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
528:05:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
500:03:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
418:01:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
406:Stereotypes of white people
395:00:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
376:04:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
327:11:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
299:09:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
287:00:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
272:23:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
246:23:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
220:23:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
61:07:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
968:
827:hate crimes against Asians
668:- Trojan horse POV push.
470:this specific subcategory
454:this specific subcategory
307:No, I'm still going with
944:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
348:Anti-Japanese sentiment
924:I agree with Carrite.
885:2001 Oldham race riots
594:(I am not convinced).
72:AfDs for this article:
889:Eugene Terre'Blanche
505:groups, and that we
852:. I still think a
580:to push their POV.
543:do that very thing
44:The result was
319:and POV-pushing.
248:
234:
59:
959:
946:
831:WP:Systemic bias
799:
793:
235:
217:
211:
201:
200:
186:
138:
128:
110:
58:
56:
49:
34:
967:
966:
962:
961:
960:
958:
957:
956:
955:
949:deletion review
942:
797:
791:
576:for folks like
459:Runnymede Trust
436:this, specific,
215:
209:
143:
134:
101:
85:
82:
70:
52:
50:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
965:
963:
954:
953:
937:
936:
919:
907:
874:
873:
872:
812:, but consider
806:
805:
804:
763:
733:
732:
731:
730:
729:
728:
714:we do not have
692:matter of fact
681:
680:
662:
661:
660:
659:
638:
637:
608:
607:
606:
596:The Rhymesmith
583:
582:
581:
538:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
520:The Rhymesmith
484:
483:
482:
479:
475:Glayde Whitney
462:
446:
410:The Rhymesmith
368:The Rhymesmith
353:The Rhymesmith
329:
321:Black Kite (t)
305:
304:
303:
302:
301:
293:Black Kite (t)
266:Black Kite (t)
249:
204:
203:
140:
136:AfD statistics
81:
80:
79:
71:
69:
64:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
964:
952:
950:
945:
939:
938:
935:
931:
927:
923:
920:
918:
915:
911:
908:
906:
902:
898:
894:
890:
886:
882:
878:
875:
871:
867:
863:
859:
855:
851:
846:
845:
844:
840:
836:
832:
828:
824:
820:
816:
813:
811:
807:
803:
800:
794:
788:
785:
784:
783:
779:
775:
771:
767:
764:
762:
758:
754:
750:
746:
742:
738:
735:
734:
727:
723:
719:
715:
711:
707:
706:
705:
701:
697:
693:
689:
685:
684:
683:
682:
679:
675:
671:
667:
664:
663:
658:
654:
650:
646:
642:
641:
640:
639:
636:
632:
628:
624:
620:
616:
612:
609:
605:
601:
597:
593:
589:
584:
579:
575:
571:
567:
564:
563:
562:
561:
560:
556:
552:
548:
544:
539:
529:
525:
521:
517:
512:
508:
503:
502:
501:
497:
493:
489:
485:
480:
476:
471:
467:
463:
460:
455:
451:
447:
444:
440:
439:
437:
433:
429:
425:
421:
420:
419:
415:
411:
407:
403:
398:
397:
396:
392:
388:
383:
379:
378:
377:
373:
369:
366:
362:
358:
354:
351:
349:
345:
341:
338:
334:
330:
328:
325:
322:
318:
314:
310:
306:
300:
297:
294:
290:
289:
288:
284:
280:
275:
274:
273:
270:
267:
264:
262:
258:
254:
250:
247:
243:
239:
232:
228:
224:
223:
222:
221:
218:
212:
199:
195:
192:
189:
185:
181:
177:
174:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
149:
146:
145:Find sources:
141:
137:
132:
126:
122:
118:
114:
109:
105:
100:
96:
92:
88:
84:
83:
78:
75:
68:
65:
63:
62:
57:
55:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
943:
940:
921:
909:
876:
857:
853:
814:
809:
808:
786:
774:Stonemason89
765:
753:Stonemason89
736:
718:Stonemason89
713:
665:
649:Stonemason89
610:
578:User:Wittsun
565:
546:
542:
515:
510:
506:
487:
469:
465:
453:
449:
442:
435:
431:
428:specifically
427:
423:
400:
381:
364:
360:
344:Antisemitism
339:
332:
331:
308:
260:
252:
251:
226:
205:
193:
187:
179:
172:
166:
160:
154:
144:
53:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
792:Orange Mike
570:WP:COATRACK
210:Orange Mike
170:free images
881:Hate crime
819:Hate crime
741:Hate Crime
623:Hate crime
574:WP:SOAPBOX
466:statistics
337:Hate crime
313:Hate crime
257:Hate crime
54:Sandstein
850:synthesis
450:should be
402:necessary
238:• Gene93k
897:FormerIP
893:does not
862:Robofish
835:Robofish
424:specific
317:WP:UNDUE
131:View log
914:AniMate
770:Wittsun
766:Comment
710:Wittsun
696:Biophys
670:Carrite
627:Biophys
551:Uncle G
492:Uncle G
387:Uncle G
279:Uncle G
176:WP refs
164:scholar
104:protect
99:history
922:Delete
910:Delete
877:Delete
858:delete
688:racism
666:Delete
340:unless
261:delete
148:Google
108:delete
854:merge
817:into
815:merge
787:reply
737:Merge
690:is a
566:Reply
488:first
382:first
361:Merge
335:with
333:Merge
309:Merge
253:Merge
191:JSTOR
152:books
125:views
117:watch
113:links
16:<
930:talk
901:talk
866:talk
839:talk
810:Keep
798:Talk
778:talk
757:talk
722:talk
700:talk
674:talk
653:talk
631:talk
611:Keep
600:talk
555:talk
547:read
524:talk
496:talk
414:talk
391:talk
372:talk
365:Keep
357:talk
346:and
283:talk
242:talk
227:Note
216:Talk
184:FENS
158:news
121:logs
95:talk
91:edit
926:MtD
795:|
747:or
739:to
617:or
590:or
511:and
324:(c)
311:to
296:(c)
269:(c)
255:to
236:--
213:|
198:TWL
133:•
129:– (
932:)
903:)
868:)
860:.
841:)
825:,
780:)
759:)
724:)
702:)
694:.
676:)
655:)
633:)
602:)
557:)
549:.
526:)
507:do
498:)
443:is
416:)
393:)
374:)
285:)
244:)
233:.
178:)
123:|
119:|
115:|
111:|
106:|
102:|
97:|
93:|
928:(
899:(
864:(
837:(
776:(
755:(
720:(
698:(
672:(
651:(
629:(
598:(
553:(
522:(
494:(
412:(
389:(
370:(
355:(
281:(
240:(
202:)
194:·
188:·
180:·
173:·
167:·
161:·
155:·
150:(
142:(
139:)
127:)
89:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.