Talk:Race and crime in the United States/Archive 2

Political Ideology and Profanity are not apprpriote
I am strongly against the idea of deleting information simply because you disagree with it. Several others have suggested adding sources or adding text to the article if it is believed to be biased. Censorship is not the answer. It is also sad that some have reverted to profanity. Perhaps a dictionary will aid one in finding words to use which are appropriate. Typically those who resort to profanity in an intellectual setting do so out of panic or the fact they have no real arguments. I also think personal attacks and name calling are not neccessary. Rather than calling someone a name just say why you believe they are wrong. Is that not more logical? Aseals (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Incomplete? Sanitized? What's up?
Congratulations to the editors - you have produced an article on "race and crime" that completely fails to discuss the issue of racial disparities in crime rates, except stating the percentages in a couple of sentences.

I would have thought that an article on "race and crime" would actually discuss the issue of racial disparity in crime, and consider the issues surrounding it. I have not been following this article, but I have noticed a few previous versions that had more information. I do not know about verifiability of that information, but it is clearly not NPOV to give DUE weight to the topics at hand. Clearly, where there are disparities in crime between races, this is the article to discuss it, isn't it? If not, where is that article? Feichangdao (talk) 01:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely. I think that certain people here consider that this topic may create bias by it's mere existence. So they sabotage it by deleting any new material added, so that only a small meaningless shell remains and they can claim this article is of a low quality and should be deleted. Zzmang (talk) 09:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of causes, not random statistics
This page is awful. It has statistics that are taken out of context and give a misleading impression, without a discussion of the racism and socio-economic deprivation that lead to such figures. The "Canada"subsection being a prime example. Only today it was reported that in the UK "stop and question" (I forget the term, not arrest) is over 2.5x more likely if you're black, and that the police are using the powers much more than before the 7 July London bombings. This is the interesting stuff, the why and how. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please, write a tractate, why people from East Asia are so successful and don't suffer from racism anywhere in the world, and why they are notoriously preferred by racist whites over blacks, Hispanics, muslims and other failing groups.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.235.19.212 (talk) 08:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * ok, the statistics section needs to go, immediately. If we can cite studies that examine statistics in terms of "race and crime", fine. But we cannot do this on-wiki. Pure WP:SYNTH. dab (𒁳) 13:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree.--SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I don't. WP:SYNTH requires that multiple sources be used to form one conclusion; that is not the case here.  Each paragraph in the section deals exclusively with one set of statistics and one only, and does not in any way reference any other statistics.  (Except, technically, for the paragraph that introduces a US DoJ report as "a later Department of Justice report")  All of these statistics were chosen because they do very specifically deal with the question of "race and crime", particularly the US DoJ reports and the information from the UK. (Check the specific sections -- or in some case just the titles -- of the reports cited that the information came from)
 * The fact is that the statistics are needed, both from the standpoint of article scope as well as the sad fact that if there AREN'T statistics they will be repeatedly re-inserted by  supporters, only they won't be handled in such an objective manner. (Because the consensus on this article IS to have statistics) -- Y&#124;yukichigai (ramble  argue  check ) 20:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The statistics are the main part of this article and the only part with the correct references. Do not try to hide the facts for political/ideological reasons.
 * Black people are more likely "stopped and questioned" because they make more crimes, as you can see in those statistics you want to remove. If the police know that the criminal is black it's utter stupidity to stop those who are white/asian/etc. --Lousant (talk) 13:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is the reason this material should be removed, and the page merged as below. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, what's your argument here: "because someone whose viewpoints I find reprehensible likes these statistics, we should remove them?" Remind me which policy that comes from.
 * Regardless of Lousant's erroneous conclusions, the fact is that these statistics as presented form no OR-ish conclusions regarding race and crime, and are presented for completeness. (Hell, some directly counter the racist viewpoint, if you bother to read them)
 * Now if you really, truly believe these statistics run afoul of WP:SYNTH I challenge you to show me where exactly they do so, because as far as I can tell there's no area where they do, and I that's the only remotely valid reason put forth so far for their removal. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (ramble  argue  check ) 22:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:PSTS:"Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." A lay person who reads these statistics might construct some meaning from the stats, such as "Lousant's erroneous conclusions" (and he's the researcher!).  Much better to find a good secondary source reviewing those stats as useful or not and for what reason. NJGW (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd argue these are used with care, as they present only the raw statistics, no conclusions, and no erroneous details. I'd also challenge you to find any secondary sources dealing with these statistics that don't run afoul of WP:POV; I've yet to find any, and I have definitely looked. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (ramble   argue  check ) 22:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So you say that every scholarly source you've found has been unable to properly analyze these stats, but you expect a lay person to do so? Please explain your reasoning.  Also, please list the other sources you have found which analyze these stats, just out of curiosity.  NJGW (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Lay people coming to their own conclusions reading wiki are not engaging in Original Research, unless they include those conclusions in the page. Also, the statistics that I've seen so far do not engage in synthesis or original research. Until it can be demonstrated otherwise they should stay. Also yukichigai, I already have some respect for your opinions (as demonstrated in this paragraph) but please no ad hom.Zzmang (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal
DO NOT MERGE. In fact, take 'Race and Crime' down all together. This generalising title; 'Race and Crime' is an example of one of the many 'imaginary' topics that can effect ones outlook on the society and the world in which they live and can both on a sociological and psychological level, incite racism. The subject/topic 'Race and Crime' is meaningless. Crime, in the VAST majority of cases, is not a result of ones DNA, but that of the factors around them; family, friends, neighbourhood, financial situation, emotional condition, ............................... Load of rubbish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.125.117.111 (talk) 03:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It has been suggested that Biological criminology (a.k.a. Criminology) and Race and crime be merged. I have no opinion for the nonce, but wish to stimulate a unified discussion. - Eldereft (cont.) 07:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * the term "biological criminology" I take from the title of the best source this article has, Gibson (2002). The title "race and crime" works as a troll magnet more than anything else, and if we're going to discuss the genetic predisposition to crime, we'd best do it under such a title. can also remain a section redirect for now. --dab (𒁳) 08:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Not a good idea. Given the poor biological definition of "race", the article here on race and crime is more of a sociological thing than anything on biological causes of criminality. --Crusio (talk) 11:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

this ostensibly isn't true. Both the Cartwright and the "Italian" ideas of "race and crime" discussed in this article are ostensibly biologist. The "race is sociological" idea is rather cognate to the decline of "race and crime" hypotheses in the 20th century. Already from the article's sources, Born to Crime: Cesare Lombroso and the Origins of Biological Criminology, it is obvious that the topic discussed here is exclusively one of heredibility of criminal traits. dab (𒁳) 17:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This article already exists in a better form under Anthropological criminology, making what remains here appear to be a POV fork for those who believe that the practice of measuring heads is somehow useful to criminologists. Propose this article be wiped and be made a redirect. NJGW (talk) 21:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Both articles are distinct and different from this one. This article discusses the correlative link itself, while the others discuss criminology practices.  There's enough content here to justify a separate article.  Nonetheless, if you really want this article wiped you're welcome to suggest it for AfD, though that has been tried once before and was unsuccessful. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (ramble   argue  check ) 22:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding or blind? The only sourcable info here so far is the history... which is exactly what this topic is: anachronistic.  How is this different from the AC article?  NJGW (talk) 02:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge to Anthropological criminology (so proposed on that page), as NJGW appears to be correct regarding the overlap of topics. The use of race (though not ethnicity) as a variable is now deprecated in sociology research, but the concept of genetic determinism as relates to criminal behavior is still important. The Criminology section deals with environmental and social factors, not just genetics. That page is also 30 kb, long enough to be thinking more about spin-off sections than merge-to proposals. - Eldereft (cont.) 04:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge anything not pertaining to the history and redirect to Anthropological criminology. NJGW (talk) 21:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Do Not Merge race, may or may not be a scientifically valid classification. However, "race" as defined by society or self identification clearly is related to various sociological outcomes one of which is crime. This article survived a deletion attempt, and this redirect has the effect of defying the "keep" vote. This topic is clearly notable and has a wealth of statistical sources.Zzmang (talk) 01:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect (to anthropological criminology) and salt this page (full protection) to stop the racism from being reinserted. Verbal   chat  10:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply - Salting is inappropriate, as Wikipedia is not censored. Regardless of your personal views on the topic, this article discusses a valid scientific and statistical topic which has been studied from all sides of the argument, from admittedly racist figures to non-partisan research groups, and even world governments. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (ramble   argue  check ) 11:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Against Race and Crime is notable page, anthropological criminology is not the same as race and crime. Obviously I'm against salting, which in this case is POV pushing. Zzmang (talk) 12:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

redirect to article other than that in merge proposal
The article was redirected to a article different than that in the redirect request.


 * 1) REDIRECT Anthropological criminology


 * See discussion above. Feel free to move over any info you deem important.  NJGW (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree with merging Race and Crime to Anthropological Criminology. There has been little attempt to reach meaningful consensus on this issue, I will assume good faith for now. I will talk to you again I'm sure ;-) Zzmang (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Where is the consensus to merge to Anthropological Criminology?
I don't see a consensus for any merger, let alone a merger that wasn't even proposed. Merging (and deleting most of the data) of a page that survived a deletion attempt seems a lot like going against consensus to me. Why are you doing this?Zzmang (talk) 03:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In the discussion section above. Verbal   chat  10:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Article title should be replaced by "race and crime in the USA
The title of the article suggests that there could be some general correlation between "race" and "crime". Actually, this correlation might be specific to some countries, and the interpretation would rely on sociological studies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.221.132.194 (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Color of Crime
I do not agree that www.colorofcrime.com is a reliable source. It comes from the New Century Foundation, which, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, is a hate group. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)