Talk:Immigration and crime/Archive 1

Italy
LAST EDIT: Please do not include unreliable/outdate sources. Also do not delete data.

The study you just deleted (Bianchi et al. 2013) is (i) three years old, (ii) the most highly cited article on immigration and crime over the last five years; and (iii) published in one of the top economics journals. The article is not by any measure "unreliable/outdated". I added it back to the wikipedia page Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

You deleted data from Italian Ministry authorities, the most important figure concerning immigration crime in Italy. This is now re-introduced. You also are providing explanations or justifications to higher crime of immigrants compared to Italians, by citing illegal status and age. But this is NOT what this Wikipedia article is about. The Wikipedia article is about crime rates of immigrants in Italy compared to Italians. Explanations still do not change the higher rates. We are not discussing if immigrants are bad or nice people. We are discussing if - for whatever reason - crimes are higher or not. And they are much higher. By hiding this information, you are mirepresenting the truth and giving poor reporting work. Also you seem to assume that not giving legal status to immigrants is a choice that could be avoided to reduce instantly crime rate, while it is obvioulsy part of every governemnt effort to monitor immigration not to give legal status to everyone. Illegal status immigrants would not be committing crimes in Italy if they would leave the Italian territory when not given legal status. This discussion is complex, but it is certainly NOT an easy assumption and NOT the subject of this Wikipedia article, which is about, again, numbers on crime rates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.63.70.57 (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Assuming you're talking to me: (i) This wikipedia page is about the relationship between immigration and crime. I fail to see how cutting edge research on immigrant crime in Italy is supposed to be irrelevant. This page is not just supposed to be a list of contextless data. (ii) The deletion of the stats was accidental, as I attempted to fix your erroneous edits that deleted, inserted and re-ordered the whole section. With another editor's help I re-added the missing data, helped him re-phrase his text and found an English report on the same data to quote directly from. So your accusations that I'm covering up the "truth" and doing poor reporting seems unfair. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

REPLY (14 Feb 2016 4.55pm) (i) The MAIN subject of this page is about crime rates. According to data, crime rates of immigrants in Italy are significantly higher than those of Italians, so this must be reported as first and most important data at the beginning of the article. Rearranging of the article was necessary to that end: stating data first, and providing background later. Of course we can then add context (for example illegal status and age) as possible explanations - which are also causes - of higher immigrants' crime compared to Italians' crime. (The continued high presence of illegal immigrants in the country as well as younger age of immigrants are possible causes and explanations of higher crime rates, not justifications as the tone of the article wants to imply.) (ii) Deleted data reporting higher crimes will be reinserted by me - at the beginning of the article - if they were erroneously or accidentally deleted. This includes overall data by the Ministry of the Interior and data by nationality (Romanians, Moroccans, etc.) (iii) This kind of data will also contradict the erroneous statement that robberies are the only crime category where immigrant crime is higher, as data shows that immigrants’ violent crime rates including rape is also significantly higher than Italians’. So that statement about robberies will need to be removed as well, if we do not find more recent and reliable sources confirming it. (iv) When I first found the Italy section of this article in December, it was a collection of outdated sources, grammar mistakes, and flat wrong statements, for example the statement that legal immigrants' crime rate is "slightly higher" than Italians' rates, when the numbers themselves provided along with the statement showed up to 86 percent higher rates; therefore a complete misinterpretation of data, together with exclusion of relevant data from the Ministry of the Interior. The article from "La Repubblica" given as a source was flawed with the same bias, and I think an example of poor or biased journalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.44.26 (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

(i) I would be fine with re-arranging the section to put the Idos/Unar report and the 2013 report at the start. (ii) I deleted the data dump version of your text as it gave undue importance to the crime rate of these groups. I wrote instead something along the lines of "Groups XYZ have the highest crime rate". Another editor then deleted this text because the source that you used had been flagged as unreliable. (iii) No. Please don't remove statements and sources if you clearly don't understand them. This is the Bianchi et al 2013 study that is by no means unreliable and outdated (see the first post in this talk section). (iv) Most of the that text has been fixed. The 2013 report in English has furthermore been added. I don't comprehend Italian so I can't verify the Italian sources thoroughly. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Undue importance? According to whom? I do understand statements and studies. One single study is not representative and must be taken into context. (BTW: Here is an example of rape crime committed by immigrants give legal status http://corrieredelmezzogiorno.corriere.it/lecce/cronaca/17_febbraio_21/violentato-due-pakistani-vicolo-vittima-giovane-ragazzo-italiano-27dcc09a-f82e-11e6-b2ea-c8dd30feb546.shtml) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.225.169.99 (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Spp-poster.jpg
The image Image:Spp-poster.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --06:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Needs improvement
This is just like a dump of statistics and anecdotes rather than an article. It needs much better sourcing and some actual discussion of the issue. At the moment it'd be a handy cheat-sheet for those opposing immigration but it's not of much use educationally. Fences &amp;  Windows  23:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed (on both of your posts). In its current state, the article does nothing more but dump statistics from an extremely limited collection of sources, without any of the reasoning and analysis that go into these surveys. Presented like this, it merely reflects the reasoning of one single political agenda. As Fences&Windows says, it needs to have its scope broadened - a lot - or we could just as well start serving up articles of the form "blank criminality." Somebody262 (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Broaden the scope?
If this were broadened to be Immigration and crime it could cover issues of illegal immigration, human trafficking, crimes against immigrants and crimes by immigrants, and the article wouldn't have the automatic assumption inherent in the title that there is such a thing as "immigrant criminality". Fences &amp;  Windows  00:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Fences, there is such a thing as immigrant criminality, it's a plain question of choosing to single it out and look at it. You have shown extremely bad judgement in this, and It appears that you simply want impose Political Correctness no matter what.

It isn't helpful to wave your hands and try to change the subject, or failing that to delete the article, when it is pointed out that the immigrant demographic in practically any industrialized country has a significantly higher rate of delinquency. No, it isn't helpful to state that there are also crimes commited against immigrants, and other crimes commited by non-immigrants, that's just changing the subject. What needs to be done is to look at it and try to collect evidence showing why this should be the case and what are the underlying mechanisms. It isn't "immigrant-bashing" to do this.

If you do this honestly (as opposed to either just indulge in immigrant-bashing, or on the other hand, try to dismiss the subject as a "myth" or as immigrant-bashing), the "young male" topos will come up very soon. It turns out that (a) immigrant demographics have an above-average percentage of young males, and (b) young males of any demographic show above average delinquency. What needs to be discussed, then, is the correlation between being a young male, migrating and being criminal. Do young males migrate in order to be criminal, do they migrate and then become criminal as it were as independent decisions, or do they migrate and then become criminal because they feel alienated in a foreign environment, or what. This needs to be based on sociological literature and demographic studies. This is complicated enough without your attempts to muddy the water and introduce random unrelated topics. --dab (𒁳) 15:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Crying "political correctness" is a very dodgy argument to deploy, you're immediately assuming bad faith. Failing to include discussion from the sources that deny that such as thing as "immigrant criminality" even exists is not good editing. I'm not "muddying the waters", I'm saying this is a sub-standard article and needs entirely rewriting to give a balanced view of the intersection of immigration and crime - which can include a section about "immigration criminality", providing it is well-sourced and balanced. The very subject is imbalanced as it makes the assumption that such a thing as "Immigrant criminality" exists by its title without even trying to show that it does, instead just listing some statistics without any real context. For an analogous potential article, try starting "Jewish criminality" and see what happens. Just because we can write an article on a certain topic with a certain title doesn't mean we should. Someone has moved the title to "Immigration and crime" as I'd suggested; I'd ask that we leave it there and rewrite accordingly. If the topic is so complicated, why did you not write the article properly to reflect that? Perhaps you should take more care on complicated and sensitive topics in future. Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

well, wildly moving articles around to titles considered politically more palatable also does very little towards addressing concerns that the article content is sub-standard. No, this article does not need a balanced account of "the intersection of immigration and crime", this is nonsense, as the article's topic is clearly immigrant criminality, not intersection of immigration and crime.

Your suggestion "try 'Jewish criminality'" is pure WP:POINT (a.k.a. bad faith). We could indeed write an article about the notion of Jewish criminality, because the term was historically in use, and is notable in the history of anti-semitism. Just as long as it is made clear from the beginning that "Jewish criminality" is a term relevant to the WWI to Nazi era. "Immigrant criminality" otoh is not a historical term, it is a term used in a discourse very much part of current-day affairs. If in 50 years there should be a paradigm shift to a consensus that the debate on immigrant criminality during the 2000s was misguided and inherently xenophobic, please come back in 2060 and present your refereces then. WP:CRYSTAL. Your implication that just because "Jewish criminality" is today considered an ideological concept within anti-semitism does not prove that the situation with "immigrant criminality" is in any way comparable. Sheesh.

If there is little immigrant criminality in the USA, that's great for the USA, but it just means that the USA has little to contribute to this topic, not that this topic is invalid. --dab (𒁳) 11:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You're still assuming that such as thing as "immigrant criminality" exists, and then writing the article to suit that assumption. An article that fails to discuss why there could be an association or perceived association of immigrants with criminality and just lists some statistics out of context is basically worthless: but you wrote one anyway. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course it exists. It's a synthesis of two items, immigration and crime. Just like "armed robbery" exists. There are arms, there are robbers, and there is armed robbery. Of course it would be "original synthesis" if we as Wikipedians just took two concepts, such as "unicorns" and "manslaughter" and wrote an article about it. The entire point is that the synthesis of "arms" and "robbery", or of "immigrant" and "crime" isn't ours but is found in notable, quotable sources.

I am really through with your bad faith stalling. All you did for this article was nominate it for deletion and slap ridiculous amounts of cleanup tags on it. Either you are interested in working on it or you aren't. If you are, let's see some good faith contributions. If you aren't, please leave it alone already. --dab (𒁳) 10:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Crime and Immigration (2007) and Immigration and Crime (2006)
Two books which appear worth looking into in regards to the future of this article are:


 * Crime and Immigration (2007) by Freilich & Newman
 * Immigration and Crime (2006) by Martinez & Valenzuela

-- Aryaman (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool. I will roll my sleeves up and see if I can help. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Both of these books discusss the situation in the USA specifically. So far this article is missing an US section altogether. We should start one, and branch out detail to an immigration and crime in the United States article. The situation in the USA is vastly different from that in Europe. In an US context, it may in fact make more sense to speak of "immigration and crime", because there appears to be actually less criminality among immigrants on average. --dab (𒁳) 11:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion.
I see this was suggested in feb. This article is terrible and reads very poorly. It is of little use to scholars looking for information and reads like a piece of propaganda in places. RUBBISH.77.102.241.60 (talk) 14:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed Lawdroid (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Most of the sections do not observe NPOV Inund8 (talk) 22:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is fine, the sources obey Wikipedia rules. NPOV does not mean inventing your own facts, we dont give equal consideration to fringe opinions compared to accepted consensus. It is simply a fact that in majority of countries immigrants have higher criminality (the only exception I know is US with Mexican immigrants), and the article reflects that (if you dont think its the case, feel free to provide different data that show the opposite). What could be improved is adding some paragraph about the interpretation of the data (there is none so far, only the numbers are stated), but thats definitely not a reason for deletion.  - Blaspie55


 * Not agreed. I find it well sourced and balance. Zezen (talk) 11:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't agree with deletion either. But the article does need improvements and better sourcing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Txjo 115173 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

inclusion of norwegian information
makes it as if Norway has a huge problem with immigrants. edits are suspiciously like a banned user who has been trying to paint migrants very negatively. LibStar (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It's up to you what to make of it. It is only the facts. Statistics about crime by immigrants in Norway is of course relevant to an article on WP named "Immigration and crime". The norwegian material is exactly in the same format as the rest of the article. Removing well sourced relevant content like you're doing is vandalism.81.167.16.214 (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * IP. Have you followed the redirect you carelessly removed? If you do you will find that all of the information (sources and all) is there. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 02:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you mean ? It says nothing of immigration and crime. Why does it matter by the way?
 * Do you realize how stupid you look right now... the article title reads Immigration to norway. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 02:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I really dont get what you're trying to prove.81.167.16.214 (talk) 02:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Police reports or statistics?
Both in Norway and the other scandinavian countries immigration is controversial, and while Sweden, and later Norway has been rather liberal, Denmark has become more strict lately. Oslo, Stockholm and Malmö have areas with high percentage of immigrants where crime is much higher than the rest of the nation. In Oslo the areas that has traditionally had high crime rates are now inhabited by a high percentage of immigrants, likely due to low rent. In Norway crime is going down and in Sweden it is steady even with high immigration. Norway got a new "sex-buy-law" in 2009 changing the sex-market and possibly increasing the number of reported sexual assaults - so rape may be a biased indicator when talking of crime and immigration. Also, most immigrants to Norway are men (77%), and men do more crime (84%) than women. Unemployment is also higher among immigrants. I did not do the maths, but immigrants may in average be more moral than Norwegians if more factors are considered. The police-reports from a certain area right after a new law was introduced are important, but assault-rape is a tiny part crime-statistic. There is nothing incorrect (that I can see) said about Norway, but raw-data may blur the bigger picture which is that immigrants in general are ordinary people, but they are typically young, male, and foreigners. Should the police-sections be rewritten? Markuswestermoen (talk) 09:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

enough with the PC whitewashing
The problem with this article is the bigot attitude expressed here. In what way is it "racist filth" to say that anti-immigrant sentiment is on the rise in Europe, and that this is directly associated with the debate over high immigrant crime rates? Is it "racist" against the Dutch to state that they elected figures like Fortuyn and Wilders because of their frustration with immigrant crime? Well, they did, I am sorry if this insults those Dutch that voted for other parties, but that's how democracy wins, the people with the most votes get to govern. Personally I would never vote for right-wing populists, as I do not think they are part of a solution but much rather part of the problem, but everyone needs to recognize that dissatisfaction with the immigrant situation will invariably lead to a backlash via protest votes and result in unsavoury figures entering parliament. It is entirely pointless to deny this mechanism. --dab (𒁳) 07:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

here is another example of bigotry. Apparently, the required standards are that every edit to this article must "represent the whole of immigration" in a given country. How this article is supposed to be improved with such surreal expectations (a.k.a. WP:POINT) is a mystery.

Some people seem to labour under the misapprehension that discussing criminal immigrants is somehow a slight on immigrants in general, including law abiding ones. This is, of course, ridiculous. The fact is that "immigrant criminality" is a real political issue which creates a real and tangible political backlash, and it is irresponsible to refuse covering it just because that backlash happens to be associated with nationalistic and right-wing populistic overtones. --dab (𒁳) 13:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * With an article name such as this, what do you expect? It's like having an article entitled Men and rape, Muslims and stoning or Koreans and cat eating. Of course some immigrants are criminals, and some criminals are immigrants. There may be more immigrant criminals than non-immigrant criminals and this will enable various political groups etc to get excited. But really, it's not a stand-alone subject that merits treatment as a seperate issue. Anything in this article would sit much better in individual country articles, or in immigration or crime-related articles. This is because "Immigration and crime" does not mean anything different than "Immigration and crime" (unlike say Rhythm and blues or Search and rescue. The article creates the presumption of an intrinisic relationship that simply doesn't exist. This will inevitably lead to problems and conflict in editing and maintaining it. --Pontificalibus (talk) 23:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * thanks Pontificalibus, agree with name change. LibStar (talk) 00:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * um, the topic of this article is immigrant criminality. I agree to current title is misleading. This is what I am talking about. Yes, the article is in bad shape. The proper approach would be to help fixing it. What people are doing instead is deteriorate it even more, and then call for deletion because it has been deteriorated. This is disingenious.
 * That said, "immigration and crime" is a valid topic. The question is not, does the article title connect to nouns with a conjunction. The question is, can it be shown that there is serious literature covering the topic. With several monographs titled "immigration and crime", this is very easy to establish for this title.
 * You are correct that if a title is purely compositional ("Immigration and crime") the topic is invalid. Rhythm and blues, Search and rescue and immigration and crime are valid because there is literature about this specific conjunction. "Koreans and cat eating" is not a valid conjunction because at least I fail to find literature covering the topic. --dab (𒁳) 11:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

single extreme example for Germany
persistently trying to include this example, is extremely selective and violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV in its presentation. if someone didn't know anything about German immigration would they draw the conclusion all migrants are like this? LibStar (talk) 02:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

"if someone didn't know anything about German immigration would they draw the conclusion all migrants are like this" -- what on earth led you to such an idea? Please respect WP:FORUM and don't use Wikipedai talkpages for random rhetorical elaborations. Also please do not abuse WP:AFD for whimsical WP:POINT. --dab (𒁳) 11:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Immigration and crime → Crime among immigrants — Current title to some extent makes a bias against immigrants overall, and draws a line as if immigration lead to crime and looks at the issue of crime conducted by immigrants in isolation of other factors and without addressing the issue of crime against immigrants. There are records which indicate when an immigration affected positively on country's economy e.g. catalyzing economy and increase in demand. Userpd (talk) 13:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think your proposed name actually makes a bias against immigrants overall, focusing on crime perpetuated by immigrant persons, whereas the current title doesn't preclude the positive or negative effects of immigration on overall crime rates. --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, here it would be clearly written about crime among immigrants rather than assuming that immigration and crime is mutually inclusive. Also, you said: "the current title doesn't preclude the positive or negative effects of immigration on overall crime rates" - how is the data of performed crimes by immigrants or suggesting that crime and immigration is just one thing is positive to you? Userpd (talk) 01:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. To whatever extent the problems identified by the nominator exist, the proposed title is far, far worse.  The current title merely juxtaposes the two topics, allowing the article to discuss how the two intersect and to what extent; there is no bias implied.  The proposed title, on the other hand, unnecessarily limits the scope and implies that crime specifically "among" (whether that means "by" or "against" is unclear) immigrants is somehow notable in itself.  Powers T 19:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't limit, it just clarifies to avoid assumptions. Userpd (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're going to have to be more specific. What assumptions?  How does the simple conjunction "and" imply a bias against immigrants?  You said: "There are records which indicate when an immigration affected positively on country's economy" -- which has what to do with crime?  Powers T 20:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Assumption that immigration is something bad (crime). Assumption that immigration and crime are two things that are notable enough to keep focus on it in order to worse the situation with immigrants. It has to do with crime because there's no article which would indicate "immigration and positiveness on economy" or something like that. It's no doubt this article will be used as a platform for spreading the idea that immigration is bad by "providing data" on how many crimes are being performed by immigrants simply because they're immigrants omitting other aspects which could have lead to a crime. Userpd (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you consider the mere existence of this article to be a problem, then. Your proposed title is certainly no better at trying to disassociate the two concepts than the current title; if anything, it's worse.  Powers T 02:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Crime among immigrants" isn't that controversial (it's just a natural thing) as bounding immigration and crime together. Userpd (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I appreciate and roughly agree with the rationale, but I also agree with Pontificalibus that the proposed new name does not solve the POV title problem. At the moment I think "Immigration and crime" is about as neutral as you're going to get. While we're here, it is true that the article still has POV issues, particularly in the Sweden and Switzerland sections which are completely torn out of any kind of contexts (hence, the POV is largely due to errors of omission). Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

no consensus, eh?
Strange how it was no problem to move this article away from its original location at immigrant criminality even though there was no consensus for that either.

I created this page in October 2007 at immigrant criminality. I would ask you to kindly leave it in place as long as there isn't any consensus for anything either way. It is one thing to do things by the book, it is another to apply double standards. --dab (𒁳) 11:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's pretty clear that using a very POV title like that for such a topic, using just one source, which is only source in the article, is about WP:NPOV policy. Someone should have noted the change in talk, but it should not be a controversial change. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

AfD Comments to help improve article
Here are some relevant comments from the  deletion discussion that can be used as basis of expanding the article (assuming WP:RS found), including some sources - whose inclusion was one reason article was not AfD'd (so someone should put them in the article if they don't want to see a future AfD). In part theses suggestions are made to deal with the legitimate concern expressed in the AfD: "usual[ly] people wouldn't try to blame the entire group of people but instead focus on individuals that do it without labeling others for their attitudes / crimes.": So hopefully efforts will be made to improve article. Maybe I will do so myself in my area of interest - immigration and colonialization and crime. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * the books linked in the discussion, cited by the closer, are not from reliable academic presses. Chick Bowen 02:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as sources go, 10 minutes on a library web catalogue gave
 * Is Immigration Responsible for the Crime Drop? An Assessment of the Influence of Immigration on Changes in Violent Crime Between 1990 and 2000. by Tim Wadsworth, University of Colorado Boulder
 * Higher Immigration, Lower Crime. by Daniel Griswold, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute
 * Mexican Immigration: Insiders' Views on Crime, Risks, and Victimization. from the Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice
 * CRIME AND IMMIGRATION by Gino Speranza, in the Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology
 * Latino Employment and Black Violence: The Unintended Consequence of U.S. Immigration Policy. by Edward Shihadeh and Raymond Barranco, LSU
 * IMMIGRATION AND CRIME IN AN ERA OF TRANSFORMATION: A LONGITUDINAL ANALYSIS OF HOMICIDES IN SAN DIEGO NEIGHBORHOODS by Ramiro Martinez, Jacob Stowell, and Matthew Lee - Criminology
 * Don't forget:
 * Ironically for all of these claims about POV-pushing, the first chapter of McDonald2009, one of the very books cited in the AFD discussion, is arguing that immigration reduces crime based upon a review of the scholarly literature on the subject.
 * The first book is by assistant professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Massachusetts Lowell and published by academic publishing house, and the second book is edited by  professor and co-director of the Institute of Criminal Law and Procedure at Georgetown University, published by Emerald Group Publishing, and containing articles written by people such as  associate professor of Sociology at the University of Akron and , associate professor of Criminal Justice at Florida International University.
 * look, there are more books which are pretty much of the same reliability (the University of Michigan, Oxford University Press US) with titles that draw an assumption between ethnicities and crime, should we create an article for this too? Ethnicity and crime? So, like I said, there are other aspects which should we take into account, most of crimes which are done by immigrants not being implied in the article by its current title. And makes it look as their immigration status is the reason for more crimes.
 * If there's a link between immigration and crime, then that's definitely to be explained on Wikipedia--and if there's no link between them, then that too definitely needs to be said...PS: The current article isn't about "immigration and crime". It's about "immigrants as perpetrators of crime".  It either needs to explore the subject of immigrants as victims of crime as well, or change its name.  An article called "immigration and crime" would need to mention issues like human trafficking.
 * ...historical info on US history of immigration where there was a very free immigration policy for a few hundred years (to the Native Americans dismay, of course) is relevant. In fact, in that case the colonialists were a bunch of land grabbing murderers. Hmmm, and then there's Israel's colonialists and lots of others (Albanians in Kosovo, for example, and they were supported by US; another interesting case.) When do people stop being immigrants and start being colonialists anyway?
 * Immigrants as victims of crime are tackled by chapters 5&mdash;9 of McDonald2009, with articles written by people such as professor and Natalie Taylor (of the AIC).
 * Immigration affects on the crime level is an oft-spoken topic to warrant an article. That article is extremely poor quality though...
 * This article is not expected to make a conclusion about the presence or nature of the link; it is supposed to (and does) present the arguments and data published on the subject, and the readers will make up their own mind about the conclusions. As all agree,   the article needs very considerable expansion.
 * Immigration affects on the crime level is an oft-spoken topic to warrant an article. That article is extremely poor quality though...
 * This article is not expected to make a conclusion about the presence or nature of the link; it is supposed to (and does) present the arguments and data published on the subject, and the readers will make up their own mind about the conclusions. As all agree,   the article needs very considerable expansion.


 * Well, you are essentially saying that there is tons of literature for those who wish to build this article. I think this was clear all along. The people who keep moving, pruning and Afding this article are not interested in developing it, they are interested in sabotaging its development. If the people only interested in preventing this article will now kindly stay away, perhaps it can finally make some progress.
 * I understand the misguided political correctness that motivates this kind of disruption. I also think it is stupid. I am familiar with Swiss statistics. In Switzerland, people of Sub-Saharan African origin have a crime rate about eight time higher than the Swiss population. This is a highly significant statistical fact and definitely needs to be reported and examined. Does it translate to "Africans are more criminal than Europeans"? No. And nobody in their right mind would suggest it does. It translates to "Sub-Saharan Africans who happen to be in Switzerland, for a variety of poorly understood circumstances and reasons, happen to be more criminal than the average population". Sometimes the mere facts are relevant too, or even more relevant than abstract or ideological conclusions.
 * This article is expected to report any conclusion that happens to be reached in published literature on the topic. The presence of the link for many countries is a simple matter of statistics and beyond dispute.
 * It goes without saying that interpretations for this are not to be made in Wikipedia's voice. What this article should do is reporting interpretations made in quotable sources. This is just stating the obvious. There are 3.5 million Wikipedia articles, and these basic observations hold true for each one. --dab (𒁳) 11:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * statistics should be presently clearly so as to be easily misintrepreted. Use of "single extreme examples" of say a group of people of race X committing a horrendous crime is WP:UNDUE. This article should not be a list of selective statistics and examples of crime. This article needs to be structured better than a country by country account of migrants committing crime. LibStar (talk) 11:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the simple fact that immigrants are often discriminated against in employment and therefore some turn to crime. And let's not forget situations like a) immigrants who came because their countries were formerly colonized and/or such immigration for cheap labor formerly encouraged and b) immigrants whose own economies were harmed by the nation they moved to (think NAFTA) and therefore feel forced to come here and some turn to crime; and c) crimes committed by cross-border criminals who aren't immigrants but who might place immigrants in various countries for purpose of crime. So crime was the purpose of, not the result of, immigration. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * so? you are listing some, just some, possible correlations. You pick them selectively due to your political agenda, sombody else would list other correlations, also picked selectively. Obviously the aim of this article must be to present all such proposed correlations within WP:DUE. The fact remains, of course, that there is a statistically significant correlation, in part due to the mechanisms you listed, in part due to others. It is one thing to explain a correlation. It is another to draw political conclusions from such explanations. At present, the "lead" talks about "real or perceived correlation". This is of course completely biased. You may as well say that superconductivity is the "real or perceived" disappearance of electrical resistance, or that rape is a "real or perceived" sexual assault. Obviously using a term implies that you have "perceived" something, and there is room for misperception. Making a big fuss about an epistemological commonplace is just a sign of editorializing. The question is not whether there is a correlation between immigration and crime. That is well documented. The question is whether it can or should be excused due to factors such as those you listed. Recording a correlation and opiniong that it is excusable are two fundamentally different things. Your list of reasons suggest that you do think that it is excusable, and that is fair enough. Basically you are listing discrimination, historical colonialism and economic retaliation as valid excuses. This article should certainly document this opinion, but it must label it as an opinion. Others would list anthropological factors such as "excess of young males". This may indeed be a valid excuse, I don't know, let's see the quotable references. The question will still be, for the purposes of the policy makers of a given country, whether they should opt to allow significant immigration of a demopgrahic of whom they know in advance that they will cause a statistical increase of delinquence for perfectly excusable and normal reasons. In the same vein, increasing the speed limit on a mountain road will increase the number of traffic accidents for perfectly excusable reasons, namely human neurological reaction time. Policy makers will still be responsible for an action which is forseeable to cause an effect, especially if the effect is perfectly predictable. --dab (𒁳) 11:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Netherlands statistics
This section is almost completely unsourced, and the sources are of the lowest quality - two third-hand news reports. I propose that we delete this section unless official statistics can be provided. Lawdroid (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd agree; it's worrying (and the source at the end doesn't inspire a great deal of confidence). Probably best to remove stuff like that unless/until a better source is added. bobrayner (talk) 09:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Misleading statistics
Studies that purport to demonstrate that immigrants have lower crime rates in the United States almost always fail to take into account the length of an immigrant's stay in the country versus the length of a native-born citizen's stay. If I were to release all the convicts of a maximum security prison and, one week later, inquire into how many of them have been re-arrested for violent crimes versus how many arrests were made for those same crimes in the general population, I might well find that ex-convicts have low rates of criminality compared to the general population and might then claim that ex-convicts are less violent than those who have never been to prison. That's false because it will not likely remain the case if I compare arrest rates between these two groups five or ten years out. Similarly, native-born citizens have had their entire lives in country to rack up criminal records while many immigrants have only had months or a few short years to do the same (and assuming they've actually stayed in the country for the entirety of their duration). In spite of this obvious problem, most studies fail to take this into account. They rely on comparisons of lifetime incarceration rates and don't use more appropriate "per year" metrics of criminality.

Furthermore, a look at the most wanted lists of individual states often reveals a very high percentage of Hispanics whose birthplaces are unknown (and who are often formally described as "white males" ) even in states with relatively low percentages of Hispanics. It appears obvious that many of these fugitives are illegal immigrants from Latin American countries who have made these wanted lists precisely because they've escaped home. These people are not tabulated in arrest statistics because they've fled the country prior to arrest! 24.113.109.228 (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for this? bobrayner (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE
The article Europe section is not UNDUE, because it only presents statistical facts, and there is no dispute in mainstream media or academia that this statistics are true. The only dispute is about their *interpretation* - whether the higher crime rate is due to socioeconomic conditions, culture or law enforcement bias. This interpretation issues need to be clarified (with each view given appropiate space per WP:UNDUE). But there is no reason to delete simple facts that present no disputed opinions, when they satisfy WP:VERIFIABILITY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShotmanMaslo (talk • contribs) 12:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

``socioeconomic'' may be the catch phrase here: in countries, where immigrants etc. are poor, the crime rate may go down with wealth for every kind of citizen alike. The article states nothing about correlation, causality and socioeconomics. Please delete this whole misleading article or rewrite it as something IMHO in the line of: 'correlation cannot tell us a thing unless we are doing regional, meta-paper studies, which still won't even tell the whole truth.' 178.4.255.47 (talk) 08:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I disagree, correlation can still tell us something, even if you dont have definite consensus about the causation, which is why correlates of crime are used. What is the crime rate of immigrants (perhaps compared to crime rate of general population) is still a piece of useful knowledge. You can add studies that go deeper into the causes (if you have them), but they are not strictly necessary for this article to provide useful information - even the raw crime rate of immigrant populations is enough.

STOP reverting my contributions without discussion. The sources are NOT atrocious. RTV Rijnmond, NIS News and The Local are very respectable, mainstream news sources. The Local is the largest English-language news network in Europe, NIS News is the official english site of the Netherlands' national news agency ANP. They are also not cherrypicked, I have not found any other sources dealing with the topic (feel free to add other respectable sources that disagree with them if you think I have deliberately missed something). I am giving you a chance to voice your objections, but unless you provide a good reason why it should not be included, I am going the revert the delete.

More sources to support my contributions:

http://www.elsevier.nl/web/Nieuws/Nederland/236094/Schokkende-cijfers-criminaliteit-Marokkanen-Rotterdam.htm

https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/16374/Leun%20van%20der.pdf?sequence=2

"Early studies in the Dutch context showed that boys of Ambonese (Indonesian) and Surinamese origin were more often registered as crime suspects than Dutch boys. A number of studies since then recognise a significant overrepresentation of Moroccan and Antillean youngsters in recorded crime."

"Although problems with youngsters with a Moroccan and Antillean background attract most of the attention, the 2002 police data also show that less noticed groups of immigrants also display higher crime rates than natives. They come from countries such as the Dominican Republic, Angola, Congo, Sierra Leone, Tunisia and Algeria (Blom et al. 2005: 125)"

"Police data for 2002 that were linked to population data showed that 37.5 percent of all recorded suspects of a crime living in the Netherlands are of foreign origin (including those of the second generation). The proportion of these persons in the suspect population is therefore almost twice as high as the share of immigrants among the Dutch population. The highest suspect rates per capita are found among first (4.9) and second generation (7.1) male migrants from a non‐western background. Rates for so‐called ‘western migrants’ are very close to those of the native Dutch. In all groups, rates for women are considerably lower than for men, with the highest found among non‐western migrants (Blom et al 2005: 31)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShotmanMaslo (talk • contribs) 19:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Why don't you have any official sources, then, instead of news sources? Looks a hell of a lot like cherrypicking. Lawdroid (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I have not found the primary sources these articles reference on the internet, hence the "better citation tag" - if someone finds them, it would be prefferable. But even if not, respectable secondary sources are acceptable as citations and should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShotmanMaslo (talk • contribs) 05:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

NPOV tag
Someone added a NPOV tag, asserting that the data are "somewhat cherrypicked", probably referring to the Europe section. As the autor of a large portion of that section, I feel the need to say that I have not cherrypicked anything, unless Google is cherrypicking - contrary to the US, there is simply no data from Europe that I know of that would show immigrants having lower crime rate than the natives - the best I could find is that Eastern Europeans have the same crime rate in Britain, and its in there, added by me. The opposite point of view has no basis, and thus should not be represented on Wikipedia - we dont give heliocentrism and geocentrism the same weight because of neutrality. If you think I omitted some source showing the opposite, feel free to add it, but I have not found anything like that. [unsigned comment, probably by Blaspie55 (talk)]

I have fixed some weasel words, to call spade a spade. Zezen (talk) 09:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I found weird POV quotes "[The rate of crimes by immigrants] further drops to 2.4 : 1 if offences that cannot be committed by Germans are taken off." source.

I wonder what crimes can only be committed by non-Germans. Anybody knows?


 * Its probably referring to things like illegal immigration into Germany, perhaps abusing services that are for citizens only - in general, things that are legal for a German citizen to do, but illegal for non-citizens. Although this is just my guess. Blaspie55 (talk) 10:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Good guess, but these are not crimes. No statistician would include these here.Zezen (talk) 11:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Italy: ScrittoreMagrolino's edits
@ScrittoreMagrolino: Please revert your edits as:

1. You introduce too many grammatical etc. mistakes despite my comment on your Talk.

2. The Amnesty "scuola/secondaria-primo-grado" source that you elaborate on is POV material for school-aged kids, so not a Wp:RS. Do not use these.

3. Your other controversial edits are not sourced and limited to this article, hence Wp:OR and Wp:SPA.

4. Edits such as "significantly higher (between 64 and 86 percent higher) than Italians' crime rate, between 1.23% (64 percent higher) and 1.4% (86 percent higher)", and thus deleting the "significant" qualifier are at best clumsy, while also subjective, to put it mildly.

Zezen (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

1. The mistakes has been corrected by 207.244.188.188

2. The source ('Popoli Migranti Guida per l'insegnante' PDF) is reliable and cites sources for every data mentioned within, in this case 'Rapporto del Ministero degli Interni: Stranieri e Sicurezza' (government data)

3 . See page 17 of the Amnesty International report

4 . in this page immigrants' crime rates (jn the ways analyzed for other nations) usually are 3-5 times higher than natives' crime rates without adverbs like 'significantly' to remark that so adding 'significantly' here  is not consistent with the page, therefore it is not neutral because it diverts the sense of the phrase in this context. ScrittoreMagrolino (talk) 08:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Ad 1. Here is what you wrote since then, exempli gratia: But taking into account the different legal status of foreigners, 16.9% of the complaints against foreigners regularly present can be connected directly or indirectly to the immigration law...

Apart from the WP:Weasel words can, directly or indirectly, the bolded term has little meaning in English. Please ask a native English speaker to fix these so that we can comment.

Ad 2. Please thus quote 'Rapporto del Ministero degli Interni: Stranieri e Sicurezza', which is RS, directly, so that we can check therein.

THanks. Zezen (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I can't find the full government document(only a partial summary is available in the government site), the  data however can be found in another document that elaborates government data, in fact the Amnesty International report refers to two sources for those information, this is the document mentioned  (download 'comunicato/scheda' )

http://www.caritas.it/home_page/tutti_i_temi/00001531_01/10/2009___La_criminalita_degli_immigrati___dati__interpretazioni_e_pregiudizi.html

The document is called "La criminalità degli immigrati: dati, interpretazioni e pregiudizi". As you can see when you open the document the report is made by 'Dossier Statistico Immigrazione' (aka 'IDOS' as you can see here http://www.dossierimmigrazione.it/categoria.php?cid=1). IDOS is a statistics agency that works with the government (as you can see here http://www.integrazionemigranti.gov.it/Attualita/News/Pagine/idos_imprenditoria_luglio2014.aspx or here http://www1.interno.gov.it/mininterno/site/it/sezioni/sala_stampa/notizie/immigrazione/2014_03_25_rapporto_idos_EMN.html :)  therefore the data is reliable. 'La criminalità degli immigrati: dati, interpretazioni e pregiudizi' is furthermore a famous document mentioned by many other studies (peer review) like this https://books.google.it/books?id=RpfrAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA829&lpg=PA829&dq=La+criminalit%C3%A0+degli+immigrati:+dati,+interpretazioni+e+pregiudizi&source=bl&ots=2-cHeUuX-6&sig=BN2rVK-Ad8tch5ErqC3ec86Xloc&hl=it&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwifrqOInpvKAhWIOxoKHa75AAU4ChDoAQg1MAg#v=onepage&q=La%20criminalit%C3%A0%20degli%20immigrati%3A%20dati%2C%20interpretazioni%20e%20pregiudizi&f=false

ScrittoreMagrolino (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I read the La Criminalita source. It talks about LEGAL migrants in the intro: degli immigrati regolari nel nostro Paese è solo leggermente più alto di quello degli italiani (tra l'1,23% e l'1,40%, contro lo 0,75%...,

while you write only "foreigners" there. As stated above, the illegal aliens commit many times more crimes so its apples and oranges here. Please rephrase then or explain here. Zezen (talk) 05:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@ ScrittoreMagrolino Ad 1. Please also further fix the grammar of your contributions such as: Legal immigrants' crime rate is higher than Italians' crime rate, between 1.23% and 1.4%, compared to 0.75% of Italians' crime rate, and It is lower between people over 40 years old, comparable data considering that immigrants have a lower average age, in particular: for people aged 18–44 years old, it is' 1.50% ... that detract from the Italian section of this article. Zezen (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I gave ScrittoreMagrolino a chance to fix it, but as s/he abstained for over a week, in the end I took a stab at it myself. Got stuck in the middle of Italy's section, where the grammar, stylistic and even mathematical errors got the better of me. Can another Italian speaker try to rescue it, as per the Italian sources, hopefully other than POV Amnesty International? Zezen (talk) 13:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I read the original sources and the main problem is that people of Italian nationality are compared with people of a foreign nationality. That means that naturalised immigrants are counted as Italians, obfuscating the exact relation between immigration and crime. I don't see the mathematical problem you indicated, though. And also you stated a "not given in the source" where that source is quoted so literally that we'll have to paraphrase it because of copyright problems :o).--MWAK (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not able to adjust the grammar in Italy section more than that. MWAK immigration in Italy is a relatively recent phenomenon so naturalized immigrants produce a negligible effect on statistics. However this is a study dated 1998, made by a famous Italian sociologist, about the very first decade of immigration in Italy (1991-1998): http://www.cestim.it/argomenti/11devianza/carcere/due-palazzi/studi_explorer_%201%20-%204/pagine%20web/rapporto_fra_immigrazione_e_crim.htm

'A commettere più frequentemente i reati ricordati sono tuttavia gli immigrati privi di permesso di soggiorno. Sul totale dei cittadini extracomunitari denunciati per i vari delitti, quelli senza permesso di soggiorno sono quasi il 70% per le lesioni volontarie, il 75% per gli omicidi, l'85% per i furti e le rapine. Il confronto con gli italiani mostra che, se gli immigrati regolari commettono oggi più spesso reati degli autoctoni (almeno in certe classi di età) gli irregolari superano di molte volte, per tassi di criminalità, sia i primi che i secondi.'

Short translation: Legal immigrants have an higher crime rate than Italians only for certain age categories, instead Illegal immigrants have many times higher crime rate than legal immigrants and Italians and commit almost all the crimes committed by foreigners (see the percentages). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScrittoreMagrolino (talk • contribs) 23:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

definition of "immigrant"
Snooganssnoogans has now deleted a section 3 times by undoing the information under United Kingdom. This is unfair. He totally ignored my reason. You cannot arbitrarily make your own definition that fits your own opinion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration "Immigration is the movement of people into a destination country to which they are not native or do not possess its citizenship in order to settle or reside there, especially as permanent residents or naturalized citizens, or to take-up employment as a migrant worker or temporarily as a foreign worker."

The definition of immigration states that people who seek refuge or work in another country can become a naturalized citizen or obtain permission for permanent residency...and still be considered an immigrant and not an indigenous, native inhabitant. He is now considered a "legal immigrant" who must follow the laws of the host country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_%28law%29#Categories "a legal alien is a non-citizen who is legally permitted to remain in a country. This is a very broad category which includes tourists, guest workers, legal permanent residents and student visa resident aliens."

The African or Muslim population have been predominantly occurring in the 20th century and 21st century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_crime "Immigration and crime refers to perceived or actual relationships between crime and immigration." Now we see here that this wiki article does not solely deal with "actual" statistics but also the "perceived" relationship. There's a perception of how people from other countries bring their own culture to influence their behavior that may be at odds with the native laws.

For example, in Saudi Arabia, women are not allowed to drive a car. This law is different from the equality in the UK. It's the "perception" how immigrants from that region may not have the same respect if they did not grow up in the same environment.

If you can find new information that shows the Japanese having a lower crime rate, then I would not object with you. I'm not against immigration as a foreign policy, but the truth should be allowed with freedom of speech.

I want to get a compromise with you, Snooganssnoogans, or get another person to discuss this issue and come to a consensus. Thank you for your time. I will be undoing it just for my 2nd time because I gave links and explanation with the keywords of "perceived" and "naturalized citizens". Even if you do not personally agree with the statistics, the facts are permitted and relevant according to how they've been defined. Billyh45 (talk) 02:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Even after 50 years, a settler from another country is still considered a legal "immigrant". Their children can be brought up while learning their ancestors' culture, different language, foreign food, or clothing. Even 2nd generation families consist of the "perceived" relationship to immigration. Billyh45 (talk) 03:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Simply being black or Muslim does not make you an immigrant, even if someone perceives you to be. Is Oxlade-Chamberlain an immigrant? Is George Galloway, who happens to be Muslim, an immigrant? There is already a page for 'race and crime in the UK' and you're free to create one on 'religion and crime in the UK'.
 * Galloway denied converting to a Muslim in the early 2000's. "The opening paragraph of Jemima Khan's piece in the New Statesman, referring to an alleged conversion ceremony, is totally untrue." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9229014/George-Galloway-denies-claims-he-converted-to-Islam.html


 * Also, Islam is a foreign religion that was brought into the country by immigrants. Therefore this affects the "perceived" relation as used with the formal definitions given in the above links for wiki's "Immigration and crime" article. Are we not allowed to discuss similar content across multiple wiki articles? Why does an immigrant's religion not apply to an article about immigration? Billyh45 (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion
A third opinion has been requested. As is the usual rule, I will ask the editors to state in one or two sentences what the question is. Please be civil and concise if you really want a third-party answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Snooganssnoogans undo'ed the section 3 times because of his interpretation of the word "immigration" as only "recent immigration" in a narrow sense. But if it's defined in the intro as "perceived" as well as "actual" relationships, then wouldn't "legal immigrants" from the 1990's who have become "naturalized citizens" count in a broad sense? ( reversions) Billyh45 (talk) 05:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The issue is that you want a section on the crime rate of blacks and Muslims in the UK because these groups are either actual or perceived immigrants. I disagree because both these groups include people who are not immigrants in any sense (actual or perceived, legal or illegal): nobody thinks of Lady Evelyn Cobbold (a Muslim) as an immigrant or the "Black Liverpudlians... able to trace their ancestors in the city back ten generations" as immigrants (quoted from the Wiki article on 'Black British'). This seems very straightforward to me. [This is by SnoogansSnoogans. I'm not quite sure how to appropriately sign off on the 'talk' sections]
 * Be civil and concise, and state what the question is. Comment on content, not contributors.  Otherwise I will have to remove the Third Opinion request.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I, like Robert McClenon, am a Third Opinion volunteer. From the edit summaries made since the Third Opinion request was made, I think that with the assistance of Volunteer Marek that this dispute may have been settled, at least for the moment. If that's the case, then the editor who made the request at the Third Opinion page should remove the request. Also to Snooganssnoogans, you sign your talk page posts by adding four tildes ~ at the end of your post. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Robert, I'm sorry if I was not concise enough. Should I re-phrase my question? This is the first time I've contacted Third Opinion. Transporter, Marek helped me with something else, but he did not resolve my question. Billyh45 (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If there still is a question, please restate the question, and be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality and Censorship
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Immigration_and_crime&diff=700028811&oldid=700028081 I'd like to know why User:Sj%C3%B6 said, "removing news item that doesn't fit in" in his edit summary on 15 January 2016. A direct quote from a police chief in Stockholm has not relationship to crime or immigration at all?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Immigration_and_crime&diff=699929824&oldid=699929626 I'd like to know why User:Volunteer_Marek said, "undue - the text around it lists actual studies, here is just some media reports" in his edit summary on 15 January 2016. Can you explain why a reliable source is called "just some media reports"? What is the meaning of "undue"? Does Wikipedia have a guideline for "undue" for the basis of removing contributions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billyh45 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

If 2 or more editors are in dispute, then it will endlessly continue unless a moderator can make the final judgment. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Immigration_and_crime&diff=700034286&oldid=700034000 Volunteer_Marek states here that "this is obviously relevant". He's saying that political views from the opposition of parties are allowed to criticize the official statistics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Immigration_and_crime&diff=700055424&oldid=700040811 Volunteer_Marek then removed my post about the police. He claims I'm violating No_original_research Then why remove the entire post? Is the direct quote from a police chief in Sweden an error that shouldn't belong in a Wiki article about crime in Sweden? Volunteer_Marek engages in aggressive editing.

If you check his talk page, he has a history of removing without adequately explaining and without forming a consensus with the other editors. User_talk:Volunteer_Marek and User_talk:Volunteer_Marek

I will remove my sentence if it violates No_original_research, but I believe the police chief's comment is relevant. Can a moderator please give a final ruling? Billyh45 (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Also why remove a statistic from the National Geographic? It's a reliable source. Billyh45 (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Because you plucked it in the middle of nowhere completely divorced from any context.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Some important points:


 * 1) Moderators do not give final rulings.
 * 2) Try to abstain from personal attacks.
 * 3) Individual cases of the type "Immigrant X committed crime Y" are simply irrelevant to the article. It's not a list of immigrant crime cases, even notorious ones; it tries to give information on the (mainly statistical) relation between immigration and crime in general.
 * 4) Newspaper articles are very poor sources because journalists are generally uninformed, not trained to understand scientific research, and reflect the political bias of the newspaper they are working for.
 * 5) The content of the article should largely reflect scientific sources, i.e. criminology textbooks and scientific articles, especially in view of the highly controversial nature of the subject.--MWAK (talk) 09:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with MWAK, with a caveat that if an article refers to police statistics, we should use it, absent an academic source, which alas often is the case here. Zezen (talk) 12:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Move the Italy section up
I'm relatively new at this, so I'm wary about doing source edits. Could someone move the Italy section to where it should be alphabetically? Thanks. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Veni, vidi, movi ;). Zezen (talk) 12:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

When possible, use direct quotes from studies?
Because the subject matter is controversial, wouldn't it better to use quotes from the studies when possible (i.e. when the quotes are concise and easily understood)? When editors try to reinterpret and rephrase the findings, they could slightly alter the findings to reflect their own biases (I'm not accusing anyone of having done this as of yet, but it could be a future concern) or misinterpret the findings (if they don't understand the nature and instruments of the study: these studies are after all very complicated and difficult, which is why the literature is so relatively recent). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * If possible, yes. Of course the results of such studies are often presented in complex tables that are cumbersome to quote and hard to understand. And the jargon of the plain text tends to be difficult to read.--MWAK (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I vote for rephrasing these in plain language: many a source uses wp:weasel, especially if it is a translation into English. I have fixed many here.... Zezen (talk)


 * Whether you may thus "improve" the source depends on the kind of weasel words used. If the source says "some researchers claim" and then gives a footnote indicating which researcher in what article makes said claim, it is of course preferable to directly mention this researcher. But sometimes phrases may sound a bit weasely, but are exact within a scientific context. The phrase "can be explained" e.g. is correct when indicating to what extent a phenomenon can be explained by certain factors.--MWAK (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I checked the sources, and they do not claim what other editors edited here. E.g. as per this one, the crime leads to anti-immigrant feelings, not a weasel "perception of the rise in bla bla": demonstrate that high local crime rates make an anti-immigration vote more likely I edited the section accordingly. Provide full quotes therefrom stating otherwise before removing my anti-weasel edits. Zezen (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, all three studies claim that the perception that immigration leads to more crime increases support for these parties. I think it's more appropriate to talk of a "perception of a causal impact between immigration and crime", as there may not always be an actual relationship between immigration and crime (see for instance the study by Luca Nunziata which finds that immigration had no impact on crime rates but still led to greater fears of crime among natives).

From the study in CPS: "Utilizing issue ownership theory and political opportunity the- ory, I argue that populist right parties increasingly appeal to a disaffected electorate concerned with their own physical, economic, and social security using populist rhetoric to campaign on strong law and order platforms, often linking crime to rising immigrant populations."

From the Dinas and Von Spanje study in ES: "This suggests that immigration and crime rates do not make all citizens more likely to cast an anti-immigration vote, but only those who perceive a link between the two issues"

The Burcher et al study: "we argue and demonstrate empirically that mere exposure to immigration- and crime-related news is positively related to the likelihood that a voter casts a vote for an anti-immigrant party." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

So the studies show a correlation between actual crime rates and voter preferences, but mediated by their perception about the causal link between immigration and crime. In the Dutch case these perceptions are sometimes widely off the mark. PVV-voters typically assume that non-western immigrants are responsible for 90% of crime (about 35%), that immigration caused the postwar crime wave (a seven-fold increase in native crime was the real cause), that prisons are filled to the rim with non-western immigrants (45% or about four thousand, including non-residents), that the crime levels are one or two orders of magnitude higher than the actual ones and, most bizarrely, if asked to estimate which percentage of the population each non-western subgroup represents, they frequently give an enumeration the total of which equals a majority of the population. Apparently there are people who think that 20% percent of the Dutch population is Moroccan (2%) and 10% Antillean (0.8%).--MWAK (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Immigration and crime. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.nisnews.nl/public/180309_1.htm

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Remove "The neutrality of this article is disputed"?
I don't know how the rules work exactly but there hasn't been a challenge of the content in this article in ages, and nearly all of the current content is academic research. It may have had a neutrality problem in Sep 2015, but those concerns seem to have been resolved with (i) the addition of mostly research and (ii) deletion of inaccurate and misleading news reports from sources of dubious quality (e.g. British tabloids, personal blogs) which this article used to be full of. Shouldn't we remove "The neutrality of this article is disputed" tag at the top? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree, it should be removed now. I am removing it, if anyone disagrees feel free to say so, we can always put it back if there are legit neutrality concerns.   Blaspie55 (talk) 08:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Gatestone Institute
Gatestone Institute: [https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9229/germany-lawlessness During the first six months of 2016, migrants committed 142,500 crimes, according to the Federal Criminal Police Office. This is equivalent to 780 crimes committed by migrants every day, an increase of nearly 40% over 2015. The data includes only those crimes in which a suspect has been caught.] --89.204.153.124 (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The Gatestone Institute is not a reliable source. Can you link to the report by the Fed Cri Pol Office or a reliable source's recounting of the report? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Sweden, crime and immigration
This has become a hot topic - and the source Reuters say that: Sweden's crime rate has fallen since 2005, official statistics show, even as it has taken in hundreds of thousands of immigrants from war-torn countries like Syria and Iraq. The official statistics "www.statistikdatabasen.scb.se" shows that the number of reported offences is going up, but that the crime pr capita is going down. So it matters if "crime rate" is crime pr capita or crime pr time, and crime pr capita went up in Sweden from 2014 to 2015 (latest statistics). The claim that: "Donald Trump falsely asserted that crime was rising in Sweden due to immigration" I would say is correct (he speaks falsly), but the number of reported offences is going up, and the Reuters-source does not reflect that. The official swedish statistics is provided by "Statistiska centralbyrån" and the responsible for the crime-statistics is "Brottsförebyggande rådet (Brå)". My quoting of Kierkegaard was not an attempt to undermine the credibility of Reuters, but when a politician lies, the statistics need to be very accurate or he may get away with it. Quoting the official statistic directly I also think is even better than quoting Reuters - even if the source is in swedish. From 2005 to 2015 Sweden took in 1.139.293 immigrants (excluding emigration) according to the official statistics, 83595 from Syria and 78046 from Iraq. Markuswestermoen (talk) 10:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality
I am sorry for getting the article protected for two weeks or so -- my bad. Anyway, since one can't edit the article, I think I should point out here that, even though the debated passage was removed altogether (and good that it was), it has still at least one neutrality issue at the moment that was under debate. Quote:
 * A study using more comprehensive socioeconomic factors than the 1996 and 2005 reports found that "for males, we are able to explain between half and three-quarters of the gap in crime by reference to parental socio-economic resources and neighbourhood segregation. For females, we can explain even more, sometimes the entire gap."[12] The authors furthermore found "that culture is unlikely to be a strong cause of crime among immigrants".[12]

In this passage the phrase "found" clearly gives the impression and attempts to give the impression (to someone who's not scientifically educated) that we are dealing a finding of a fact and not  an interpretation  of statistics. Anyone who knows anything about statistics should know that when if this or that variable is controlled for and it turns out that, for instance, "gap between the population narrows", this doesn't prove whether this variable has or has not any causal role. Correlation does not imply causation. Controlling for dependences only establishes correlation, and the assumption of causation is always an assumption until it has been shown that there is,e.g., no common cause. You just can't say "found" here. I already corrected this, but when the article was being attacked by censors, they removed this too. Now, I am not saying how the data should be interpreted, but what those researchers say is nothing but a conjecture and it should be reported as such. And the similar logic should holds for all conjectures, independent of the point of view which they attempt to support. --Raži (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Disinformation alert
This is indeed a hot topic, and a lot of disinformation is out there. Please don't spread it. For real statistics, see http://bra.se/krimstat2015 That's Sweden's official statistics. Click "Anmälda brott per 100 000 invånare fr.o.m. år 1950" , and you will see what the real figures are. There has been a steady increase in overall crime in Sweden from 2005 to 2015.

In 2005 the reported crime rate per 100,000 citizens was 13753, and in 2015 it was 15342. And I can tell you that the crime rates have not come down in the last two years. As to the researches referred by Reuters that allegedly show that people report not to experience more crime in some studies, I would really like to read how these studies have been made, what were the questions, etc.. Most likely it is because the number of people who become the victims of crime has not risen, but those who become victims of crime, experience it more often. I cannot explain the contradictory results otherwise, if we assume that the researches that Reuters refers is correct information. In no way can one claim, based on this information, that the crime in Sweden hasn't increased, unless one supposes that the whole increase in reports of crime is based on falsely reports of crime, which is kind of improbable, since the increase is so remarkable.

There has been most increase in the last 30 years in violent crimes and sex crimes, and although in the latter case this is partially explained by changes in legislation, it is also true that there has been remarkable increase due to immigration, since it is known that immigrants are much more likely to commit these crimes.

To conclude, Trump was actually mostly right, and it is certainly disinformation to bluntly claim that his claims concerning the connection between immigration and crime were "false", as it was claimed in the article. Due to immigration, there is more crime, particularly more drug-related crimes, more violent crimes and more sex-crimes, than there would otherwise. To claim otherwise is 100% disinformation.

--Raži (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * There have been numerous attempts to censor the information that appears to contradict Sweden's state-propaganda as OR (original research) by a number of users, though the information has been well-sourced (official stats) and no conclusions have been drawn from the data (viz., no "synthesis"). Now, in the latest version I added a source that justified that the information is relevant and non OR beyond any reasonable doubt -- and the whole passage was censored by a user with the absurd claim that it was OR. The passage was this:


 * Filmmaker Ami Howowitz, whose investigative journalism for FOX Trump was referring to in his speech, defended Trump's statement by pointing out that "[b]etween 2012 and 2016 the murder rate [in Sweden] is up almost 70 percent" ant that "[r]ape between 2007 and 2015 is up a similar number, almost 70 percent. These are their statistics, not my statistics." The statistics that Howotitz was citing are from Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention or Swedish Crime Prevention Bureau (BRÅ), which has indeed reported that the number of sexually related crimes in Sweden increased by 70% from 2014 to 2015, while 1.7% of all Swedish women reporting that they had been subjected to them during the same year. As for violent crimes in general, according to the official statistics collected by BRÅ, the the number of reported violent crimes per capita has doubled and increased steadily from 1990 to 2011, while reported crime per capita has increased steadily between 2005 and 2015, by more than 10%.


 * Obviously this is relevant, since it was Horowitz's film which Trump saw the night before his speech! And Horowitz is referring to those damn statistics. So, it is certainly reasonable that it is mentioned that she was not making it up for those who would like to fact check it, and look at the source she was citing. This is not OR and if someone makes such a claim, one can only wonder what the motivation for such act of censorship be.
 * I also labeled one recent edit as vandalism. Technically, if content is removed from the article without reason, that's vandalism: Vandalism. However, I may have overreacted to the censorship by calling it vandalism, since it may be the case that the editors have good intentions, and it was merely "unconstructive edit", or whatever. So, I'm sorry if I'm not using these labels (e.g. "vandalism") correctly, but you get the point.
 * --Raži (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * You're now currently at six reverts in less than four hours. The content that you're adding is not only an egregious example of original research (Wikipedia editors interpreting and presenting primary data) but a classic case for why original research is banned from Wikipedia, as the numbers cited are cherry-picked and misrepresented, and in contradiction to assessments by academics and fact-checkers in reliable secondary sources who have characterized Horowitz's remarks as false or misleading.       Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * What you are saying is either a deliberate lie or else you haven't even read my edits. The response of horowitz is certainly relevant, and so is pointing out what data she's referring to. And that's all that you removed -- all relevant, all well-sourced! There's absolutely no OR here, and your accusation is ridiculous and I can only wonder if you believe what you say yourself.
 * You, on the contrary, appear to be hoaxing here: deliberately censoring right information from the article.  A classic case of pathological incapacity to support neutral viewpoint. As to your sources, I couldn't care less what you believe here, and it has no relevance; to repeat, the edit was about Horowitz response and the adequacy of the stats she cited. You are free to interpret that just the way you do. It's all neutral, just reporting the facts. However,  if you actually just read your sources, you'll see that everything that they say and is not just repeating disinformative news, such as Sweden's official state-propaganda, actually only supports what I wrote above on this talk page. But that's my opinion, and though its true, it has any relevance here. I follow the rules, you violate them, and you should ask yourself why and stop doing it.
 * --Raži (talk) 00:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with Raži, and by my experience, inserting a mixture of extreme slant and censorship into articles seems to be Snooganssnoogans standard behaviour in Wikipedia. David A (talk) 05:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I cannot help but have the impression that this editor (snooganssnoogans) has an ideological agenda -- of course, this may also be not the case. Anyways, he refers to real principles of wikipedia -- no OR, due and undue weight -- but interprets these in a way that make no sense -- to the extent that one cannot but doubt whether one is being deliberately dishonest. Undue weight has to do with things such as flat earth theory. The idea that just referring to statements supportive of Trump's statement and/or statistics that may be interpreted to hint towards the conclusion that, yes, immigration has caused Swedish crime to increase, is "undue balance", comparable to questioning the holocaust or whatnot, is just ridiculous. The truth is that only in Sweden do people even debate this topic. In the rest of Nordic countries, everyone knows that immigration causes crime rates to rise. It's an established criminological fact; what the criminologists debate is not whether crime rates have risen due to immigration or not -- they know damn well they have; the debate concerns the reasons for criminal behavior of people with immigrant background --e.g., are the cause for criminal behavior the social socio-economic conditions in which the immigrants must find themselves, cultural factors, or something else. This is the criminological debate -- and its all predicated upon the idea that immigration causes crime rates to grow.
 * I would also like to point out that Sweden Institute (dedicated to promoting Sweden globally) is not a reliable source on issues that may contradict Sweden's interest to promote itself (has any governmental lobby of a democratic country ever delivered disinformation -- surely we have plenty of examples!). That's of course, the source that NEW York times was citing. And so was ABC.
 * The reliable sources that NYT cited only supported what was censored from the article:


 * "Manne Gerell, a doctoral student in criminology at Malmo University in Sweden, said in an interview that immigrants were disproportionately represented among crime suspects, particularly in more serious and violent offenses.


 * Interesting cherry picking going on, indeed!
 * As to this source, http://www.bra.se/bra/bra-in-english/home/crime-and-statistics/swedish-crime-survey.html, cited by Vox, actually you see that there has been a remarkable recent increase in sex crimes, and steady increase in fraud. Only in assaults you see a clear diminishing trend over the time period. However, this survey does count only the number of individuals suffering from crime. That is, if you're assaulted mugged five times in a year, that's the same thing for this survey as being mugged just once. I should also like to know in detail, how was the sample collected, what's the sample size, etc. In any case, it is undeniable that the reported crime has increased remarkably, and one must ask why is there such enormous discrepancy between this survey and the actual stats. And even if the results of the survey were right, it wouldn't follow from this this that immigration doesn't cause crime. Not at all!


 * As to this article https://www.bra.se/bra/nytt-fran-bra/arkiv/press/2015-12-10-dodligt-vald-minskar-over-langre-tid-men-inslaget-av-illegala-skjutvapen-okar.html, I already took away the passage that claimed rightly that reported lethal violence has risen 70%, since these people claim that the actual violence has actually gone down. However, we don't know what the truth is. It may be that Sweden simply reports those cases that the police has no resources to solve, as being caused by natural causes. It is known that this how the police acts in Japan; they use this method to deliberately make the crime stats look a little better.
 * And again, even if lethal violence had decreased, though I don't believe it has (but that's only my opinion), that wouldn't prove that immigration is not increasing crime. Not at all.
 * To conclude, if you actually read the articles that Snooganssnoogans referred to, you'll see that they offer no rationale for his censorship. It may have been that the article should have been modified a little to give a more balanced view, but that's another issue.
 * --Raži (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * This seems like an accurate assessment, yes. David A (talk) 03:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)



Fox News and Donald Trump claims about immigration and crime in Sweden belongs in the article
The following text was deleted:

"The issue of immigration and crime in Sweden received considerable attention in February 2017 after Fox News aired an interview with media personality Ami Horowitz and President Donald Trump implied, on the basis of the interview, that some horrible event related to immigration had occurred in Sweden a few days before. In that Fox News interview, Horowitz made numerous assertions about immigration and crime in Sweden, which have been deemed false or unsubstantiated by the Swedish authorities, criminologists and a wide range of news organizations and fact-checkers.      Furthermore, two policemen who featured in a Horowitz documentary about Sweden said that Horowitz edited answers and questions to misrepresent the policemen. Two camermen involved in the project later substantiated that the policemen were correct and that the footage had been unethically edited to misrepresent the subjects. The cameramen also reviewed the raw films to confirm it. Horowitz denies it, but refused to show the raw material."

"Later in February 2017, Fox News interviewed a Nils Bildt, who was described as a ”Swedish defense and national security advisor”, about the alleged problems of immigrant criminality in Swedish cities. It was later revealed that Bildt had no known connection to Swedish security, had not lived in Sweden since 1994, and had himself a violent criminal past."

This text belongs as a sub-section in the Sweden section because it addresses a notable controversy that arose on the topic of immigration and crime, and received extensive international news coverage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I could see an argument for including this in a Trump-related article. Even possibly in the more specific Immigration to Sweden article. But this article is meant to be an international overview of the effect of immigration on crime - not media or political reactions to the existence or absence of effect. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This article is not merely "an international overview of the effect of immigration on crime", but about the "perceived or actual relationships between crime and immigration." The section is indisputably about the 'perceived or actual relationships between crime and immigration'. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The question I'd ask here: is what substantive and lasting effect will Trump's comments about Sweden immigration policy have on immigration in Sweden or crime and immigration in Sweden? My best guess is none but what we can say for certain is none so far. It would not improve this article to detail every back and forth between Trump and Sweden as/if this progresses. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm confused by your criteria for inclusion. Should we only include content that will actually change immigration policy and crime rates in the countries? How bizarre. If that's the case, nothing would be included in this article. The best way to determine notability is whether this has received international attention by news media, and it has indisputably done so. In fact, there is nothing on this page that has received more attention by reliable sources than this, except perhaps the content in the Germany section and the sustained attention to immigrant criminality in the US. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying the Fox/Trump spat doesn't rank in terms of the 6 or 7 most important paragraphs about Sweden, immigration and crime. I'd even remove the existing short paragraph. In terms of coverage, if you restrict this to english-language, US-centric press I'm sure the weight of this incident is significant. In all press, books and journals including Sweden it is not. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This has received super-extensive press in Sweden (more so than in the US), and AFAIK in the international press (just google the largest newspaper in each European country + Trump + Sweden in the last seven days, and they'll have covered this a number of times). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This in depth study (2013) gets a short paragraph. This one gets another short paragraph  This 2005 study gets a longer paragraph  and this one  another short paragraph. These are serious, sociological studies. You're suggesting a Trump/Sweden "feud" should carry more weight than each of them, with it's own dedicated section. I say we shouldn't skew towards tabloid – but I'll give others a chance to comment.
 * In the meantime can you respond to my questions in the section below? James J. Lambden (talk)
 * I'm pretty sure that I added those two studies way back when. I feel that the paragraphs adequately summarize them, as do the paragraphs on the BRA reports. I feel that the Trump/Fox-Sweden feud is adequately covered above. It has its own dedicated section, because it isn't strictly about studies on the relationship of immigration and crime, but rather the perception and feuding over immigrant criminality in Sweden. These are very weak grounds to remove the Trump/Fox-Sweden feud. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * This looks to me as important, relevant and well sourced information that should stay in the page. My very best wishes (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Once again, it is a significant story, it is about immigration and crime, it seems well sourced, and I found the arguments by S. above and below convincing. So. why the removal? My very best wishes (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue is weight. A story which appears to have petered after a few days should not occupy a quarter of the entire section which – aside from this incident – is cited mostly to studies and journals. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, nothing in this article should stay if the requirement for inclusion should be sustained international attention by all major news outlets for years on end. Your threshold for WEIGHT is at such bizarre levels that nothing would ever meet it. You're also implying that there is something vastly different about the section in question, even though it features assessments by the Swedish authorities, academics and fact-checkers. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You have misunderstood my position. Again, so it's clear: the section currently is almost entirely cited to serious studies of the relation between crime and immigration, in Sweden – 100% on topic. The "Fox" section you added was a spat between Trump and Swedish press/politicians that seems to have died down after a few days. If that doesn't clearly illustrate the difference between the section as it was and the new section in question I don't know what more I can say. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * In that section, the sources show the Swedish authorities, academics and fact-checkers using the existing data and research to chime in on the controversy, so it's false to suggest that the content distinctly differs from other content in the article. That said, there is nothing that demands that content in this article be strictly studies, if that's now going to your rationale (after a string of other rationales that you've apparently abandoned). In fact, much of the content in this article is not peer-reviewed academic research. Also, of the academic research cited in this Wikipedia article, I added the vast majority of it myself. It is intriguing to now find myself in the talk pages hearing it implied that only peer-reviewed publications are acceptable in this article. That the spat died down after a few days is as irrelevant as it could possibly be - what did you expect? Sweden and the US to go to war over this? All the major news outlets running daily updates on the state of the feud? These critiques are incredibly weak, and I seriously doubt that these are principled standards that you would ever apply to other content on Wikipedia. There is no question that the content is (i) reliably sourced and (ii) due. The content in question has received more attention and coverage than nearly every section in this article (except maybe the Germany section and the US section). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a bad-faith characterization of my comments on this talk page, which anyone can read. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't oppose an RFC or some other method to solicit more opinions. As is I think you and I are going in circles. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Your critiques are so poorly justified (each rationale is ridiculous, and the fact that you abandon each of the ever-shifting rationales doesn't suggest good faith to me) that I'm definitely going to restore this section. You can then take your poor critiques to RFC if you think anyone would be persuaded by them. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Aspersions don't further the dialogue. Regarding the RFC I suggest you review WP:BURDEN. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I will restate my argument because it's been misunderstood or misrepresented: These points are consistent with policy, the longstanding scope of this article, and my previous comments here. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This article is meant to provide global information on immigration and crime with focused, country-specific overviews
 * A short paragraph on Trump is already included which itself may be undue, but it's certainly undue to detail the back-and-forth of a short-lived political spat. The more specific articles on Trump (too many to list) and Immigration to Sweden and/or Crime in Sweden are more appropriate.

Recent edits in Sweden section
I made an effort to clean up phrasing and re-organize the information chronologically in this edit: Special:Diff/767405872. I removed no information or sources and my changes to phrasing were (with the exception of one statement which was contrary to the source) to enhance readability.

That edit was almost entirely reverted here Special:Diff/767406645 with the edit summary: ''the most up-to-date information comes first. your correction of the Reuters text stays.''

I disagree wrt chronology but in the spirit of compromise and to address the objection I reordered my updated version with the most recent information first: Special:Diff/767415236.

That change was reverted again, by the same editor, here Special:Diff/767415740 with the summary: ''false edit summary. editor changes text under the guise of just changing the chronology''. That accusation is serious and incorrect – I redid my edit exactly as my edit summary suggested: reorder reverse chronologically to satisfy editor complaint (although I think it makes it difficult to discuss later reports that reference earlier reports)

Can identify specific objections to my edit? For instance, is the sentence: truly improved by restoring the comma I removed? James J. Lambden (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Another 17 were arrested, but not identified.


 * You removed the end of one sentence: "even as hundreds of thousands of immigrants and refugees have entered the country." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I did. I thought the language was unencyclopedic and conflated the more recent migrant/refugee crisis with earlier immigration. I've updated it here: Special:Diff/767419956. Do you have any objections to that phrasing and if not, any other objections? James J. Lambden (talk)


 * The previous language was from the Reuters story. In your latest edit, you removed it and added original research to the article. The Pew source is synthesis. Please re-insert the language that you removed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I've added an additional source which I hope addresses your synthesis concerns. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is an improvement over the text that used the Reuters language, but I don't really care enough to push for a change. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * My opinion is not strong either and if other editors object I'll accept it, but I appreciate your willingness to compromise and will do my best to reciprocate. With that objection settled and my chronological reordering from most to least recent as you asked, did you have further objections to my updated text? In many instances it improved readability. Considering it removed neither statements nor sources I'm struggling to find arguments against it. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So, you tell you will accept it if other editors object. OK. I object. However, I do not object everything in your edit, but mostly to removal of entire section discussed in previous thread. My very best wishes (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

This seems to be a comprehension issue. This thread concerned the text: even as hundreds of thousands of immigrants and refugees have entered the country., which my comment was in response to. The text you reverted had multiple updates, including additional sources and corrections, You have argued for inclusion of the Fox section (comments belong in the section above) but have not addressed the rest of the text. What objections do you have? And please be specific. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there are many changes in the edit. I looked more carefully, and speaking about the "Trump-Sweden issue", I can see that it was already briefly described in the stable version restored by NeilN (right part of this diff). Should it be described in a lot more detail on this very general page, as suggested by S.? This is something disputable. I have no strong opinion about it. My very best wishes (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans unedited this


 * Those with immigrant background are overrepresented in Swedish crime statistics. However, a 2013 research showed that from 50-75% of the gap between immigrant and native children diminishes when controlling for socioeconomic factors, such as unemployment, poverty, exclusion language, and other skills.

to this


 * Those with immigrant background are overrepresented in Swedish crime statistics but research shows that the difference between immigrants and natives largely disappears when controlling for socioeconomic factors, such as unemployment, poverty, exclusion language, and other skills.

Now, the layout of the citations is misleading, since as far I didn't miss anything (I checked out all the sources) only one of the sources is a criminological article dealing with the question of socio-economic factors and none of the others even mentioned the whole SEF issue (except for one citation in one article from a politician that has no relevance and is actually factually false). And it was done with children in Stockholm area and showed that 50 to 75 % of the gap many be explained by controlling SE factors. In short, the claim that SE-factors explain the whole is OR and has to be corrected. Furthermore, references should not be laid out in a misleading manner. --Raži (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * This is what the sources that you deleted say:


 * PolitiFact: "Generally, there’s a certain over-representation of people with immigrant background in crime statistics, but that tends to be closely related to high levels of unemployment, poverty, exclusion, low language and other skills, Selin said. "Swedes with these characteristics are also overrepresented in crime statistics," he said."
 * USA Today: "Jerzy Sarnecki, a criminologist at the University of Stockholm, said foreign-born residents are twice as likely to be registered for a crime as native Swedes. He said that other factors beyond place of birth are at play, such as education level and poverty, and that similar trends occur in European countries that have not taken in a lot of immigrants in recent years."
 * The 2013 study by Kardell and Martens: "When using social background factors such as gender, age, educational level, and income level together with ethnic background in multivariate analyses, ethnic background explains less of the variance in registered offending than do the other factors (not reported here). Similar conclusions have been drawn in a more extensive study by Hallsten, Sarnecki, and Szulkin (2011). This implies that ethnic background alone has a limited explanatory power. In a study of self-reported offending among pupils in the ninth grade in Sweden, Ring (1999) concluded that ethnic background had a low explanatory power. This conclusion has been drawn by Ring in various follow-up studies done at the National Council for Crime Prevention Sweden (2005a). It is known from the reanalyses of Glueck and Glueck’s (1950) material by Sampson and Laub (1993) and from some Swedish studies on juvenile offending (e.g., Martens, 1992; Ring, 1999; Svensson, 2004) that structural background variables generally have little direct effect on offending rates during the life course. Instead, the influence of these factors is indirect and mediated through sociopsychological factors such as attachment to family, school, delinquent peers, and the labor force"
 * The 2013 study by Hallstein, Szulkin and Sarnecki: "For males, we are able to explain between half and three-quarters of the gap in crime by reference to parental socio-economic resources and neighbourhood segregation. For females, we can explain even more, sometimes the entire gap. In addition, we tentatively examine the role of co-nationality or culture by comparing the crime rates of randomly chosen pairs of individuals originating from the same country. We find only a small correlation in the crime of individuals who share the same origin, indicating that culture is unlikely to be a strong cause of crime among immigrants."
 * Reuters: "The most recent official survey from 2005 does show foreign-born Swedes are more than twice as likely to be suspects in criminal investigations, but their ethnicity is not the main reason for this. "Minorities are often over-represented in criminal statistics, but when you adjust for socio-economic factors, that disappears almost completely," Social and Justice Minister Morgan Johansson said recently."
 * WaPo: "an analysis by Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter, conducted between October 2015 and January 2016, came to the conclusion that refugees were responsible for only 1 percent of all incidents. Researchers caution, however, that segregation and long-term unemployment of refugees could have a negative effect on crime rates in Sweden in the future."
 * The Independent: "Certain groups of immigrants are also over-represented in crime statistics but these groups overwhelmingly come from socially and economically marginalised suburbs, such as Rosengård in Malmö and Rinkeby in Stockholm which have “very high” unemployment rates. Schools in these immigrant-majority suburbs drastically lag behind those in wealthier areas in terms of student achievement."


 * The text which you reverted is therefore comprehensively supported by reliable sources (many of which you scrubbed from the article). Note also that this user deleted a bunch of reliable sources, added original research again and scrubbed other text that was amply supported by the RS which he/she deleted. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The text said that " largely disappears when controlling for socioeconomic factors". Disappears? Largely?
 * Well, according to the 2013 study children 50-75% of it disappears. But if you have extreme overrepresentation, it is still huge, even if over 50% of it "disappears", and the formulation was misleading; it gives the impression that the gap is close at disappearing (at best, the expression is equivocal), while it merely becomes less extreme. Now, overall if overall overrepresentation is 100% (and with immigrant kids in Stockholm it is almost certainly more than that, since there are huge differences between immigrant groups), then by cutting it into half, it still remains 50%. That's not close at disappearing by any reasonable standards. And that was one study done with kids in one area, and you can't generalize its result without succumbing to OR.
 * Neither does the article by Kardell and Martens ' support the claim. These were the only academic articles cited, and they don't support your formulation which has all the characteristics of OR. However, I will add it to the right place, since I wrongly replaced it. I would also point out that it too was only dealing with adolescents.
 * I will also replace the US today. However, what's being said doesn't support the claim that it almost disappears.
 * As to the PolitiFAct article, it said:
 * "Generally, there’s a certain over-representation of people with immigrant background in crime statistics, but that tends to be closely related to high levels of unemployment, poverty, exclusion, low language and other skills, Selin said. "Swedes with these characteristics are also overrepresented in crime statistics," he said."
 * Ok. But did it say anything about the extent to which the gap disappears? Nobody's claimed that crime and low SES don't correlate. The problem was in your OR claim falsely supported by these sources This is quite irrelevant statement, to be frank, and it's clear OR to draw the conclusion from it that you did.
 * As to the independent article, that's not real study, only an opinion of a journalist and non RS.
 * As to the statement of a politician, that's not RS.
 * As to Dagens Nyheter study, that deals with refugees, not immigrants or people with immigrant background in general, and the refugees also make much less than 1% of the population, so it's kind of funny you even added it on to the list, because it supports the immigrant causes crime thesis.
 * I would also like to point out what every criminologist know: controlling for a factor doesn't imply causation; crime and low SES may have both caused by a third factor. You can't just cherry pick interpretation of a data by some criminologists and represent it as fact. The article clearly tried to imply that somehow such causal factor not only exist but explains all of the correlation.
 * In any case, I didn't look carefully enough into those articles, I admit. So I will do some re-editing. --Raži (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Just so we are clear: (i) You're reverting content that you admit not "to look carefully" at; (ii) you're dismissing studies and claiming that they're undue even though reliable news outlets are using these studies and seeking input by the authors of the studies; (iii) you're dismissing coverage by secondary reliable sources by claiming they're not studies (so?); and (iv) you're quibbling over the methodology of the studies and basing your editing on what you yourself deem good research or not, which is not how editing works here. Until you figure out how Wikipedia works and until you can actually be bothered to read the content that you're reverting, can you please stop disruptively editing this article? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * With your disruptive editing style you have no right to judge others for small errors they correct themselves. Now I simply changed "largely disappears" into neutral, non-misleading and non-equivocal "remarkably less prominent". And even if my edit was a little disruptive, I had also a point, and now the formulation is better than it was. The formulation "largely disappears" *was* OR and non-supported by the sources.
 * Now, if I was a little careless by reviewing some of those sources, well, when others are doing that as well and even more so, that easily makes you act somewhat carelessly. Furthermore, wikipedia is error-tolerant as far as you don't stick to them. Errors are part of the process. Now, instead giving moral lessons, you should look into the mirror -- at least I do and correct my errors. Let's look at that and your editing style in the Trump part that you disruptively unedited; it was *certainly* not OR -- it's explication of the data which was falsely summarized by one of your RS's which talked about "official crime statistics", when citing a study by BRÅ [written in swedish] which was not about crime-statistics but a particular type of crime-victimhood-statistics:
 * "Under 2015 utsattes 13,3 procent av befolkningen i åldern 16–79 år för någon eller några av de brottstyper som i Nationella trygghetsundersökningen kallas för brott mot enskild person: misshandel, hot, sexualbrott, personrån, bedrägeri eller trakasserier. Det är en ökning jämfört med föregående år, men på ungefär samma nivå som 2005. Störst var ökningen jämfört med 2014 för hot, sexualbrott och trakasserier. Om det senaste årets ökning är ett trendbrott eller en tillfällig avvikelse från en i övrigt relativt stabil nivå får kommande års mätningar visa."
 * It's not OR to correct mistakenly represented information -- even if is borrowed from Washington Post or wherever, if you can offer a better source.  Journalists make errors (which is why a newspaper article isn't particularly realible), and you shouldn't repeat them in wikipedia. Look at that BRÅ research and what it actually tells. Now the article summarizes just that and with reference to BRÅ, the most reliable source on Sweden's crime stats there is. And you who accuse others for removing primary secondary reliable sources, removed that source and my short summary of its content multiple times absurdly claiming without any argument the latter as OR. Is that your gold standard of how wikipedia works? --Raži (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm just speechless. For some reason or another, you don't comprehend what Original Research is: you're removing reliable secondary sources because you believe that those sources are wrong and adding text based on primary data with your own spin on it. It's textbook OR. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * You leave me speechless. I can't even quite believe you are being honest, to be honest. The secondary source I removed made a claim that contradicts the source that the very secondary source cited. Now, if a journalist (not a a specialist of any sort) summarizes a scientific article mistakenly, you shouldn't remove the source and replace it with a proper source written by a specialist? And you seriously call that OR ! World is full of journalistic simplifications and misunderstandings of science! Just think what wikipedia would look like if the final word is given to journalists, not specialist. It's only you who has no clue what original research is. Start reading this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not --Raži (talk) 21:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Primary and secondary sources
Now I was accused of misusing primary sources, although I cited directly secondary source and added the link to a primary source. (!) Absurd? -Needles to say. Furthermore, one is allowed to take direct citations/summaries from primary sources: "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:Biographies of living persons § Avoid misuse of primary sources, which is policy."No_original_research I don't have the time to edit this passage into a fully satisfying form now, since unlike some (and why?), I don't live in wikipedia. Anyways, there should really be a citation from BRÅ itself. That's perfectly legitimate. Plus, the BRÅ-link is not link to the actual study, but to a summary of the study, so it is actually a secondary source. --Raži (talk) 20:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you take a look at all of the statistics sources that I have listed in a section below? I find it very depressing that this article has systematically censored fact in favour of opinions. David A (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Does the Fox News/Trump controversy re: immigration and crime in Sweden belong in the article?
Should the following text be included under the title "Fox News and Donald Trump controversy" (in "sub-section 2" font) under the sub-section "Sweden":

"The issue of immigration and crime in Sweden received considerable attention in February 2017 after Fox News aired an interview with media personality Ami Horowitz and President Donald Trump implied, on the basis of the interview, that some horrible event related to immigration had occurred in Sweden a few days before. In that Fox News interview, Horowitz made numerous assertions about immigration and crime in Sweden, which have been deemed false or unsubstantiated by the Swedish authorities, criminologists and a wide range of news organizations and fact-checkers.      Furthermore, two policemen who featured in a Horowitz documentary about Sweden said that Horowitz edited answers and questions to misrepresent the policemen. Two camermen involved in the project later substantiated that the policemen were correct and that the footage had been unethically edited to misrepresent the subjects. The cameramen also reviewed the raw films to confirm it. Horowitz denies it, but refused to show the raw material."

"Later in February 2017, Fox News interviewed a Nils Bildt, who was described as a ”Swedish defense and national security advisor”, about the alleged problems of immigrant criminality in Swedish cities. It was later revealed that Bildt had no known connection to Swedish security, had not lived in Sweden since 1994, and had himself a violent criminal past."

Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support - This text belongs as a sub-section in the Sweden section because it addresses a notable controversy that arose on the topic of the 'perceived or actual relationships between crime and immigration' in Sweden, and received extensive international news coverage. The sources used here are reliable and numerous, and include the Swedish authorities, academics and fact-checkers. The sources make use of the best available data and research on the relationship between immigration and crime in Sweden. The controversy has arguably received more coverage by news outlets and academia than all other content in the article, with the exception of the sections on Germany and the United States. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – (thank you for starting this RFC)
 * To this point the article has provided global information on immigration and crime with focused country-specific overviews
 * A short paragraph on Trump is already included which itself may be undue, but it's certainly undue to detail the back-and-forth of a short-lived political spat. The more specific articles on Trump (too many to list) and Immigration to Sweden and/or Crime in Sweden are more appropriate
 * The existing citations before this content was added were to journals and studies (references 91-97 approximately.) The bulk of the additional citations are to daily papers and websites, demonstrating the relative significance of each
 * It is wrong to say the new section adds data or research, it merely references existing research which if not already present should be added to bolster the section within the existing scope'
 * There is some confusion about Bildt's past given his name change; the criminal record potentially references a different individual. I haven't researched this in depth but I mention it because of the potential BLP issue so that someone more familiar can decide
 * James J. Lambden (talk)
 * (I) there is an entire section of the article about 'Perception of immigrant criminality', which is not country-specific. If any country had a brouhaha of this magnitude and coverage, it would have been added to sub-sections under different countries. This only underscores what a notable event this is. (II) There is absolutely no reason why this article should only include peer-reviewed studies. Much of the content in this article does not, in fact, cite peer-reviewed publications. Furthermore, I myself added most of the peer-reviewed publications in this article, and I don't see the content above as of any less value than all the studies I've added. The content above also covers specific claims and time periods, which the studies do not cover. The studies do not set out to fact-check popular myths about the relationship between immigration and crime, for instance. (IIIA) The section adds the 'state of the field' as of February 2017, and relies on the Swedish authorities, academics and fact-checkers for the assessment. (IIIB) The section is of value precisely because it specifically tackles popular myths about the relationship between immigration and crime in Sweden. This Wikipedia article has always been about the "perception" of a relationship between immigration and crime, and it is therefore encyclopedic to address arguably the most notable controversy over the perception of immigrant criminality in any of the countries in this article. (IV) If the content on Bildt is false, substantiate it with reliable sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think it will be helpful to begin a long back and forth here. I will address your points individually in a new conversation when I have time. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - the text is based on reliable sources and directly relevant to the topic of this article. It is encyclopedic. I don't see any policy based reason in James J. Lambden's response and in fact some of his points don't really make sense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware WP:WEIGHT, WP:BALASP and WP:BESTSOURCES are still policy. YMMV. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course they are, but I wouldn't waste my time with this agenda driven editor with a proven track record of bais. --Malerooster (talk) 02:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Support -- if you can get it down to two to three sentences. (Intent was actually oppose, see below.) This appears to be a notable kerfuffle in the history of this issue in Sweden. But, this level of detail is not all within the confines of the issue and, since it is as long as the rest of the section, isn't the right weight.. The fake expert incident doesn't pertain to immigration at all -- it's part of the story, but probably not part of the story that belongs in this article. Similarly, the details of how many steps the cameramen took to debunk it is probably more than is needed for the purposes of this article. Chris vLS (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The section as is begins with two sentences on this topic. Could you clarify whether your !vote is in support of the existing text or the proposed new section? James J. Lambden (talk) 19:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for the clarification, I missed that. Looking at existing text, my vote is the same as NinjaRobotPirate's below: Oppose, but, to quote Ninja, "the two sentences that currently exist seem fine to me, but maybe someone could find another sentence or two to add without it turning into undue weight." Thanks, James J. Lambden. Chris vLS (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. Section about Sweden already includes a few words about it . I think the controversy could be explained better and text expanded, however, I think the creating a separate subsection and including text above would be slightly "undue" for this general page. Make it shorter and not as a separate subsection. Then, yes, that would be fine.My very best wishes (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – This is pure WP:RECENTISM, see also WP:NOTNEWS, WP:10YT. — JFG talk 11:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In addition, this snippet gives too much weight to a US-centered political controversy about the crime rate related to immigrants in Sweden, see WP:WORLDVIEW. What about the crime rate related to Comorian migrants in Mayotte or Bolivians in Brazil? — JFG talk 11:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This is an international controversy, and has received far more attention in Sweden than anywhere else, even as it has received coverage in every major newspaper across the world. So you are simply arguing that it should be excluded simply because it has something to do with the US, rather than that the US focus is unwarranted and undue. If the French PM would create an international controversy over the relationship between immigration and crime in Sweden, with countless reliable sources chipping in, it should be included, no? The claim of WP:NOTNEWS is also bizarre, given that this has focused the attention of authorities, academics and fact-checkers on an issue that simply did not get as much attention before, allowing these credible sources to chip in on a topic that is absolutely relevant to this page (the relationship between immigration and crime). If Trump somehow managed to create a controversy over the boll weevil's impact on early 20th century agriculture and get reliable sources across the world to seek out the assessments of all notable experts on the topic, should we exclude such content from the boll weevil page, because of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM? Your last sentence is incomprehensible. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The above text goes into too much detail.  The two sentences that currently exist seem fine to me, but maybe someone could find another sentence or two to add without it turning into undue weight. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose I am not opposed to a few sentences or a paragraph about it, but a whole section seems excessive. Blaspie55 (talk) 12:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. I would also argue that the current mention at the beginning of the Sweden section should be moved as the Trump spat is of limited importance to the section overall. NPalgan2 (talk) 07:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Fails WP:NPOV miserably. The POV is screaming so loud they can hear it from the space station. Also, WP:UNDUE. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose: the status quo will suffice. Summoned by bot. Prcc27❄ (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose: [Pinged by bot] This seems like a no-brainer. The article is on immigration and crime, and there is very little of either in the proposed paragraph. If this little spat is important it needs to find its own home somewhere, but not here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Notable event, but I'd shorten it to a few sentences. Kamalthebest (talk) 06:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)