Talk:Race and capital punishment in the United States

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Laurensss18, Pnict13.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The "critiques" subsection
I removed the first of two references to critics of the view that support for capital punishment has a racial component, per WP:UNDUE. The cited article appeared in Ideology Journal, for which I was unable to find an impact factor on Google Scholar or Scimago. The subtitle of the journal is A Critique of Conventional Theory, and it describes itself as publishing articles that "have a minority viewpoint" and "run counter to conventional theory and premises". This raises doubt about whether the journal is RS for highly controversial claims. I also rephrased the description of the second reference so that it's closer to the authors' actual conclusions. I also retitled the subsection to be consistent with the other subsection titles. NightHeron (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * A journal's impact factor is not representative of an individual article's quality that has been published. The Journal of Ideology states that for an article to be published which runs counter to or provides evidence that contradicts mainstream thought that it needs to offer a "reasonable starting point for discourse", it is not publishing any random article from out of the blue. Furthermore, both of the authors of the study which you have removed unreasonably, have their credentials and expertise relating to the fields of criminology and law. There's no evidence to show that the paper published lacks quality or reasonable evidence for its conclusions. Reaper1945 (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The absence of information about a journal's impact factor means that it's not considered to be a journal worthy of listing in the standard references for journals' impact factors. In addition, a "reasonable starting point for discourse" is not the same thing as a reliable source. It just means something that might lead to a lively discussion, because it contradicts what most people think. The journal seems to be inviting fringe material. It's definitely a dubious source. NightHeron (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The use of a journal's impact factor to rate individual articles is highly contested, and the absence of an impact factor says nothing about each individual article. The journal itself is associated with University of South Carolina Lancaster, and there's no objective evidence that would show the college or journal itself to be publishing "fringe material", besides the subjective opinions of a Wikipedia editor. Contradicting what most people think is neither inherently wrong nor nefarious. Reaper1945 (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact that it's hard to find any information at all about a journal except from its own website is a clear indication that it's not an important or highly regarded publication. According to Wikipedia policy, claims that go against what most people in the area have written must be supported by reliable sources that are of high quality. According to WP:FRINGE, "Likewise, exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources." The fact that the authors have credentials in no way implies that they aren't promoting fringe views. Richard Lynn, Arthur Jensen, William Shockley, and many others of their ilk certainly had impressive credentials.
 * You're the one who seems to have a strong subjective opinion here. Otherwise you wouldn't have any problem acknowledging that this is a low-quality source. NightHeron (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Provide objective evidence which contradicts the study, instead of simply implying that the content within the paper is without merit and is incorrect. How the information within the paper is "fringe", is beyond anyone, only individuals who have failed to actually comprehend the contents of the study say so. The journal provides links and information on the website, it's quite easy to see. Reaper1945 (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You seem to misunderstand how Wikipedia works. It's not our job either to agree with the study or to refute it. The talk page is WP:NOTFORUM for debate about this. I've made a strong case that your source does not comply with WP:RS and is subject to WP:FRINGE. That's all that's necessary to explain my removal of that source. NightHeron (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The source shows no sign of being "fringe", your argument lacks logic. The paper itself makes no radical claims, it provides evidence and citations for its conclusions. You seem to have an implicit bias against any sources which disagree with your perspective on an issue, considering you viewed two opinion pieces from journalists as "neutral and factual", yet a study by two criminologists/professors on the death penalty is fringe. Reaper1945 (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * NightHeron is entirely correct here, and has cited the appropriate policy to explain why. That should be the end of this. Reaper1945 has been informed by several others over at Talk:Race and intelligence that it is inappropriate to insist on debating Wikipedia's core policies, guidelines and norms on article talk pages. Generalrelative (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The constant bemoaning of a source is unreasonable, the source itself has not presented nor shown any signs of being "fringe". Your argument is entirely subjective and is implicitly biased against opposing viewpoints. Again, a journal not having an impact factor is not representative of individual articles, this should be known to an individual who prides themselves in constantly checking and reverting edits in an intelligence section of a website. Reaper1945 (talk) 04:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)