Talk:Biosocial criminology

Strange tagging
Maunus is strangely making various tags on the article. The sources are clearly stated. Please explain. Academica Orientalis (talk) 23:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing strange about these tags. Merely saying that "studies have been criticized" is not enough to achieve balanced coverage. You of course have to say by whom and for which reasons. Merely citing the review is not enough, you need to include citations to the articles that made the critiques. The article is full of weaseling like that.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement that studies cited in a review must be listed. Academica Orientalis (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No but we have this funny requirement called "NPOV" - I don't know if you've heard of it. It states that if there is critical coverage of a topic then it needs to be balancedly included, not merely mentioned.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither does NPOV requre that articles and authors cited in a review should be listed. Claiming citation are missing is not the same as claiming POV. Academica Orientalis (talk) 23:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct, but in this case the missing citation of the opposing viewpoint makes the article non-neutral.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no missing citation since none is required for sources in review sources. The statements have sources with the exception of some in the history section. If you want to argue POV you should use different tags/templates and provide an adequate explanations. Academica Orientalis (talk) 23:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Your are also for some reason placed an article template in the middle of the article instead of at the top. Why? It disrupts the text. Academica Orientalis (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just supply the sourcing where I ask for it thank you. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I can add the review sources but it should not be needed since placing them at the end of the paragraph is perfectly acceptable. But if you insist I will.Academica Orientalis (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You have removed many of the citation needed templates which is good. What is your objection to the Cinderella effect source? Academica Orientalis (talk) 23:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The source is Daly and Wilson who did the original study. It doesn't mention what the critiques are or who made them. Clearly tendentious.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The source is a review. The sources for the review can be found by reading it. There is no requirement that the sources for a review article should be listed. Academica Orientalis (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not claiming there is such a requirement. There is a requirement that the article be balanced. It currently is not. A review of critical literature by the criticized authors themselves is obviously not neutral or reliable.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are arguing POV you should not use the "who" template but some other. Academica Orientalis (talk) 00:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The who template is for weasel words such as "it has been argued", "there has been criticism", "some scholars have said", "it is sometimes claimed" etc. Those kinds of phrases give the appearance of being neutral by acknowledging the existence of criticism, but fails to adequately show the reason what the criticism consisted of and who made it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Taking the example of the Cinderella effect neither the arguments for or against are presented. They are discussed in the main article on that subject. A brief summary referring to other articles are common in Wikipedia. Academica Orientalis (talk) 00:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * BIOSOCIAL CRIMINOLOGY: A CRITIQUE. Tony Platt and Paul Takagi. Crime and Social Justice, No. 11 (spring-summer 1979), pp. 5-13
 * Kevin Walby. The rise of biocriminology: Capturing observable bodily economies of 'criminal man'. Criminal Justice August 1, 2010 10: 261-285
 * 67 Brook. L. Rev. 71 (2001-2002) Seeing and Believing: Images of Heredity in Biological Theories of Crime; Rafter, Nicole Hahn
 * A thirty years old source is not very impressive in today's rapidly changing biological fields. Just listing sources without explaining what is concretely supposed to POV is not helpful. For all I know you are just Googling titles without reading them. Academica Orientalis (talk) 00:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't read these. I don't need to. You do if you want to make the article neutral.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I you have not read them you do not know if they contain significant criticisms. If you are arguing that there are NPOV problem then burden is on you to show that.Academica Orientalis (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that's your strategy.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You cannot just Google some titles and claim that there are NPOV problems. You need to state concretely what is supposed to be POV. Academica Orientalis (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Look, your own article stated that "there has been criticism", "others have criticized" etc. You just didn't have the common decency to actually describe the content of the criticism or to provide the reader with names or titles. That means that I had to google to find some (since I don't have access to the source you used to write this article, and you have already shown yourself to be unwilling to provide the relevant quotes form that material anyway). You have written a onesided piece of advocacy and now you try to make it look as if there is no criticism, even when faced with titles. Honestly it sucks to argue with you.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, Googling some titles without reading them and the claiming there are problems is of course no acceptable. Please answer my statement regarding the Cinderella effect above. Neither the arguments for and against are discussed here but in the main article on this which is linked to. Obviously we cannot here duplicate this long article. Academica Orientalis (talk) 01:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No that would be despiccable - so its good I first claimed there was problems and then googled the sources when you refused to provide any.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You have stated that you have not read the sources you claim show problems with this article: . Please respond to my argument regarding the Cinderella effect I stated in may last reply. Academica Orientalis (talk) 02:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No I have not claimed the sources I have presented show problems with the article. The article shows problems in that it mentions the existence of criticism but does not substantiate it or provide citations to it. I provided you with the sources so that you can read them and fix that problem. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have not read your own claimed sources, then you cannot claim they fix anything. You again avoided answering my point that in the case of the Cinderella effect there is a whole separate and long article discussing the issue which cannot be duplicated here. Thus neither the arguments for or against are mentioned but the main article referred to. Academica Orientalis (talk) 02:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well you are right that I can't promise that if you read them you will be able to tfix the POV problemss with the article, but that is a little much to ask I think, afterall I did google them for you when you in turn were being less than helpful. Take a chance and read them you may learn something you didn't know. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, this sentence is argued to problematic: "Biosocial criminology has sometimes been criticized for ignoring environmental influences[who?]" The source states "Perhaps the most commonly held stereotype of biosocial criminology among most sociological criminologists is that only biology and genetics are studied, while the potential effects of the environment are ignored. Nothing could be further from the truth." So I am not sure what the problem it. Academica Orientalis (talk) 02:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well the problem is that apparently the view of most sociological criminologists is not at all represented in the article, and the only source in the article is one that is clearly biased in favor of a minority viewpoint.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Another claimed problematic sentence: "Men can potentially have many children with little effort; women only a few with great effort. This is argued[who?] to contribute to males having more variable reproductive success than females." The source is obviously the review I cite as the source. But if you wish we specify that this is based on the parental investment theory. Not sure why this is a problem.Academica Orientalis (talk) 02:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "it is argued" is a clear weasel phrase that is used to deflect responsibility for the claim and make it seem generally valid.

Given the wild cherry-picking from Biosocial Criminology, New Directions in Theory and Research the article should probably be stubbed or deleted. Digging out all the unsourced stuff that looks sourced would be a nightmare. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Good source material: The book Homicide by Daly and Wilson
More info and relevant research can be found in Daly and Wilson's classic book Homicide. Suggest that editors interested in editing / expanding the article check it out. Memills (talk) 05:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Biosocial criminology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110516102016/http://psych.mcmaster.ca/dalywilson/Cinderella_Effect.pdf to http://psych.mcmaster.ca/dalywilson/Cinderella_Effect.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Race
The article probably should include a section on the use of race in biosocial criminology. This section however, should: 1. summarize the use of race in biosocial criminology based on reliable sources, 2. not pick a random quote by a random criminologist and let his position stand in lieu of an actual summary, 3. include the mainstream view, cited to mainstream sources (not necessarily biosocial criminology sources) in the relevant fields (i.e. general criminology and mainstream social science) regarding the role of race as factor in crime prevalence. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

00:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC)Article Evaluation The article written do have some biases pointed out towards biocriminology. The claims aren't well backed when stated "Study shows..." or "Experts states..." because it's not exactly telling us who provides this data. There needs to be more mentioned of the source and provide image examples to why certain factors effect the human brain of criminals. The article does bring up some interesting points such as the factors that do affect the criminal mind or what the criminal mind has but shows no comparisons to ones that aren't criminals. There needs to be more data shown and references to court cases in order to make the information provided valid.

Can aspects of my edit remain?
I would like to avoid an edit war. Editors with no stake in this discussion: do you think aspects of, or the entirety of, my edit here should be kept? @Generalrelative reverted it without mentioning what the issue was. I'll revert back the article for now because no reason for the revert was stated, but I would not like to engage in an edit war. BooleanQuackery (talk) 23:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Your edits on the whole (to this article and several others) look a lot like POV-pushing. In particular you edited to remove proper in-text attribution. I could go on and on but will instead note that the WP:ONUS is on you to establish consensus for each individual change you wish to make. Generalrelative (talk) 23:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll re-edit now in smaller chunks BooleanQuackery (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No. That is still edit warring. You need to establish consensus before re-adding. Generalrelative (talk) 00:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Since you object, I'll wait for uninvolved users to chime in. BooleanQuackery (talk) 01:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am hoping to work with you toward a consensus now. Generalrelative, could you tell me what, if anything, you find objectionable about the change you reverted, besides the in-text attribution? I am happy to keep the attribution. BooleanQuackery (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I deleted the "controversy" portion of the Cinderella effect due to the source stating the opposite of what was written
I've removed the statements incorrectly attributed to this reference:

Check out the first 3 paragraphs. Putting this here in case anyone wonders why. BooleanQuackery (talk) 19:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC) BooleanQuackery (talk) 19:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Should "Scientific racism" be in the see also?
Race/ethnicity isn't mentioned in the article and I fail to see how that would be related to this field. The other see alsos are normal:
 * Anthropological criminology
 * Behavioral genetics
 * Biosocial theory
 * Evolutionary psychology
 * Sociobiology
 * Statistical correlations of criminal behavior

The scientific racism article doesn't mention the words "biosocial" or "criminology." BooleanQuackery (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @BooleanQuackery Feel free to remove it. It seems like a long stretch, maybe someone seeing the connection with criminology = racism? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)