Talk:Race and crime in the United States/Archive 6

Explanations for racial discrepancies - No genetics?
Why are genetics, the most obvious and important thing when discussing race, not considered as an explanation for racial discrepancies? PolitikYanlışçı (talk) 13:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

No because there's no evidence that genetics cause or have any relationship to disparities. ScottsdalePrincess (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes there is, about 5% black men have the MAOA2R genetic variant. That is 5 to 50 times the rate for white men. This gene is strongly associated with violent criminality. Blacks also produce more testosterone than whites, and whites produce more testosterone than East Asians.

2800:484:877C:94F0:B895:57B:3B4E:9B27 (talk) 08:41, 11 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The "warrior gene" (MAO A2R) made the news ten years ago, but does not seem to be part of recent literature. A review study in 2014 showed no difference in testosterone levels. The information we include is determined by weight: If standard textbooks routinely mention something, then it gets included. If it's generally ignored, it doesn't belong in the article. TFD (talk) 04:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

The very article you mentioned says free testosterone differs on average. Given the properties of bell curves, a small difference in the average means a large difference at the tails. People at the right end of the distribution are likely to be committing more crimes. There is a plethora of recent literature regarding the MAOA 2R:

2016: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0093854816629184

2017: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0734016816689375

2019: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-39103-7

2018: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306453017314828

In summary, just google scholar it: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2017&q=maoa+2r&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:484:877C:94F0:4919:76D2:67EB:29B5 (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

You can't argue with a scientific racist, who is now at WP:ANI. Thus, I'm closing this and note that there is broad agreement that the genetic link to crime is well-documented, but too small to be the sole determinant. Plus, here's a 2019 study which claims to refute the connection between MAOA and aggression. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 08:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2021
The article states,” According to the FBI, African-Americans accounted for 55.9% of all homicide offenders in 2019, with whites 41.1%, and "Other" 3.0% in cases where the race was known” using reference 52. However, according to reference 52 (Expanded Homicide Data Table 3), the the recorded proportions are 39.6% African American, 29.1% White, 2.1% other and 29.4% unknown as the victim. As the inclusion of unknown offenders can change the interpretation of the data, this difference could be clarified (e.g. “when homicide offenders of unknown race are included in the total number of offenders,…”). Two references could be used: table 3 (ref 52) and the FBI summary page where the original stats of the wiki article are summarized (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/expanded-homicide) 168.122.10.47 (talk) 05:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. There does not appear to be consensus for this change. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2019 and 24 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Agallacinao.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 February 2019 and 12 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lilsaund, Ituchmann, Anmingee, Rclaire5.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Baileyw912.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2022
Please update the hate crime statistics to reflect updated data (2019). Currently, the data is from 2010. Here is the old statistics: "According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Report database, in 2010 of 3,949 victims of racial hate crimes, 58.6% of reported hate crime offenders were white or hispanic-white, 18.4% of offenders were black, 8.9% were of individuals of multiple races and 1% of offenders were indigenous Americans."

Here is the updated statistics: "According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting database, in 2019 of 6,406 known hate crime offenders, 53% were White, 24% were Black, 7% were of individuals of multiple races, and 1% were indigenous Americans." Tree12355 (talk) 22:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. IntoTheNightSky (talk) 02:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Race Crime stats
The number of whites in the US is in the 50% the number of blacks us approximately 14%. Poverty, lead paint, ect.... had nothing to do with why crimes are committed. Each and every person has a choice and can work to make a good life for themselves. Why do they change wording instead of showing facts. I did a search on Google, what race commits more crime in the US. The result said WHITE but it said hate crimes. That's not what I searched. 2601:547:C981:A870:E8D5:95DE:F013:E3C1 (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

There are real problems with this article and even the search for it.
RACE AND CRIME in the United States

Ever watch an appointed person in a congressional oversight hearing who's maybe unhappy with how skillfully they were asked a question? You don't need to know them, their politics, or have even heard the question to know if they like the question or not; even if they answer it in a manner that's technically honest, right? You can hear the literal PAIN in their voice. The resentment or condescension in their reply. They often have excellent vocabularies on generate slick phrasing on command, even when trapped. They still find ways to mitigate culpability. And it's not like we get to preview the structure of our sentences before we start them, such that we're guaranteed they don't "dead-end" somewhere and require a do-over. I've done it. Who hasn't, right?? Granted, some of them will claim they don't recall something a couple hundred times, despite us seeing they have a gifted vocabulary and memory for literally everything else. lol. Some of their "gems" (subjectively, of course) lead to safety valves like, "it depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is." No matter what the latitude of our knowledge and the skill of the questioner ... rarely do we hear dispassionate people citing facts in a way that sounds open; uncalculated. Devoid of contrivance ... in which indifferent as to what others think and even suggestive that they themselves may not have an opinion about the data, either. You know? We ALWAYS know what their MO is, their team, where they're being evasive.

Is anyone under the impression that we read your articles and entries on Race and Crime and find your authors to be dispassionate and honest arbiters of fact who are indifferent about the beliefs of the reader or the data you're reporting on? I know the sections that took you years to acknowledge, and then, you provided the asterisk, but not the data. Think we're confused? Or, are you just holding out that the people inculcated in ideological thinking from a young age (you know, the same thing cults do) will just read this and think, yeah, that sounds good. ..? That none of us have experienced the world? Aggregated a database of experiences of our own and in observing others from which to know when data comports with agitprop? Try listening to Thomas Sowell and tell me you think he's manipulating the facts to suit a narrative. Find someone who knows NOTHING about DOJ, BJS and FBI data, and see if they don't see indices of deception. And are you so cynical that you've decided the people with IQs (or whatever we try to mean by them) between 80-105 are the target audience of your material? Maybe the 50% believe you number is 110, maybe it's 100, maybe it varies on other things (life experience, SES, or things we can't imagine) ... but are you really selecting people based on their inability to know when you're withholding facts, editorializing (on a page called Race and CRIME in US) ... which should be NOTHING but statistical facts, and if you want? Offer links at the end that offer opinions or hypotheses based on particular ideas. Fine. But the data is the DATA. And you can't even deal with that, so why would I trust your opinions if you can't even honestly report facts?

WHAT is your problem with just telling the TRUTH?

Were this a page written by dispassionate truth-telling, it'd be exclusively STATISTICS and their definitions. And, it'd make it easy to compare data-sets.

Offer links to pages proffering HYPOTHESES of what people think EXPLAINS the data. Flesh out your scientific standards; test SIZE, control, CONFLICTS, methodology.

But this page has a title; and it's quite difficult to see the link between its contents and that title.

Section: Explanations for racial discrepancies

Topic: Discrimination by law enforcement ... A 2019 study by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) found facial-recognition was substantially more likely to misidentify faces of minorities, such as Asian and African-American were up to 100 times more likely to be misidentified than white men.

Great info: But this has zero to do with statistics. This isn't an article about the JUDICIAL system or law enforcement. It's the rate of victims by groups. Period. This page requires VICTIMS to match up to each crime.

A rate which I might add, is pretty similar across all race & ethnic groups There are slightly fewer arrests of minorities per victim: Perhaps it's a reasonable inference and potential explanatory hypotheses ... but it's germane.

It is TRULY WRONG for people to get the SHADE of someone wrong. The individual..? Absolutely; but that's an article called

The US Judicial System Sub-section: Habeas grabus.

But it's obscurantism to suggest or conflate topics into such a narrow topic of DATA.

FEWER blacks are arrested per victim who alleges a black perpetrator (irrespective victim race). Care to list the percent of arrests / convictions per race (on average)? List how often eye witnesses IDs are overturned by DNA if you want to show a disparity...

BUT THAT'S A DIFFERENT ARTICLE.

Worse? It doesn't even mention that we DON'T USE facial recognition (UI) to identify people for legal purposes. Making that NIST report (used here, in an article called CRIME in the US) ... is literally used for the sake of misleading reader's who won't think about the inability to create a syllogism out of that information with this context.

It's not just that some is misleading, other unfalsifiable and still other remarks are germane. It's that there's a uniform objective that's completely obvious when you read not just this article, but any wikipedia article that touches on topics with a political element to them.

Or, you could just rename it? "Approved contributors ideas to rehabilitate & provide PR for whichever groups commit disproportionate amounts of violent crime."

Again, this article is called RACE AND CRIME in the U.S.

And were this the article on problems with LE (which I'm making a website dedicated to) or DA (possibly the cause of most corruption in PDs) ... and I agree, they BAD arrests occur regularly. And it's infuriating.

DAs LIE, and encourage lying with euphemisms like "team player". Police reports aren't required to be submitted under PENALTY of PERJURY. (total BS).

But THIS article is about the amount of crime that HAPPENS and WHO COMMITS it ... WHERE. (Data, ONLY).

Not the judicial system. Not Law Enforcement. Not Prison. Not sentencing. Not legislative. Not the misuse or inadequate use of the Presidential Pardon.

Not "The stripping of the 2A right for a MYRIAD of NON-VIOLENT CRIMES."

NOT "The inability of police to provide proactive protection."

Not "Disparities in POLICE latitude to protect their lives in situations citizens are RELIABLY prosecuted"

I noticed you point out that ... "most murders are intraracial." That's good.

Should we not care about INTERRACIAL ..? (If so, why do we have hate crimes?)

BJS further breaks down interracial murders by those committed by - acquaintances, vs., - NOT acquaintances.

Some stats that make things easier for humans to quickly assess risks:

2018 RATE of INTERRACIAL VIOLENT FELONIES (between only blacks & whites) in the US: 40-million blacks / 13% committed 537,204 of 593,598 total felonies in 2018 or 1 per   74.5 blacks. 205 million whites / 64% committed 56,394 of 593,598 total felonies in 2018 or 1 per 3,635 whites.

White Rate: 3,635 Black Rate: 74.5

Dividing 3,635 / 74.5 = ~49x the white rate (annually)

COMPARATIVE INTERRACIAL MURDER RATES

200 million whites kill < 200 blacks, annually = 1 black murdered per 1-million whites (annually). 40 million blacks kill ~ 480 whites, annually = 1 white murdered per 83,333 blacks (annually)

1,000,000 / 83,333  or   12x

49x the rate of violent assaults on whites (even higher for asians, by far). 12x the rate of murder committed by whites

Ignoring the DOJ / BJS stat that says: - less than 1% of whites are killed by blacks engaged in lawful self-defense. - Roughly 20% of blacks are killed by whites engaged in lawful self-defense.

1,250,000 / 83,333  or   15x the murder rate

But this is data that deserves mitigation, couching, concealing, using poverty to justify.

Blacks murder whites at ~15x the rate of whites murdering  blacks (annually). Blacks assault whites at ~49x the rate of whites assaulting blacks (annually).

White (M) rape Black (F) (per FBI) is listed as ~0.0% Black (M) rape White (F) (per FBI) is listed as ~35%

What makes data so hard to explain? Just state facts - made it easy to compare.

Is the Wikipedia aversion to facts that the consequences (reality) is somehow "offensive."

Numbers that are YEAR after YEAR the same if not worse.

When you're trying to explain numbers that speak for themselves? You're LOSING.

When you depend on "COGNITIVE IMMUNODEFICIENCY SYNDROME" (CID) to strip BS detectors? Vs embed them? And academia can't allow the battle of ideas, but instead demands orthodoxy? Spreading "ACQUIRED CID" ..?

Is there anything more insecure than that?

I guess when your theories in practice result in demonstrable destruction of a 1st world nation ... All you can do is command allegiance to the orthodoxy and make the price for heresy as high as you can.

It's sad, bc as an atheist, pro-choice person ... my religion is science, and the world my country. But you no longer believe in your own beliefs. So you hide them as best you can.

I miss having a world to debate with ... and I hope you come back soon.

The euphemisms, obscurantism, requiring a praetorian guard or devoted ideologues invoking your shibboleths...

You're not the left I knew. The Christopher Hitchens left. He valued science, bc he revered epistemological TRUTH. He'd debate ANY religious zealots on anything he knew.

You've become cowards. Hiding. Deleting people. Enforcing WRONG think, "Ban them." Squawking about your feelings (like everyone doesn't have them).

So either LET THE DATA STAND on it's own two feet, or, make your next entry the DEATH of DEMOCRACY

- Argue that people are too dumb to deal with reality / truth (only select people can know that). - Facts are for the elite, the rest of us can be told what to believe and how to feel.

I really hope you guys get better soon; I know you know, History doesn't repeat but it rhymes.

You know we have the US postage stamp. There are no UK postage stamps, but there are US. But they have to say, google.co.uk. We're just .com. These are naming rights. Californium, Berkelium. Einsteinium, Rutherfordium.

This are hallmarks to periods in time where the principles of ideas FLOURISHED in regions. ORION & SIRIUS ... the constellations -- these are arabic names. As is algebra and algorithm.

And there was a great deal of intellectual ideas emanating from the Library of Alexandria.

There's the sad story of Hypatia ... during an epoch of orthodoxy and blasphemy from which that region of the world has yet to rebound from to this day. It doesn't require religion to do this; look at Lysenkoism. Communism was a political dogma ... and so many of the minds of our society have been polarized and sucked into this vortex in which truth isn't paramount ... but a dogmatic cult is casting a shadow over all of us which is blotting out the spirit that made the western culture one to be revered. The irony to me? Is how many people will migrate here only to regret doing so.

Please snap out of it guys ... the value of the truth is greater than the price of losing any single argument. TrumanLA (talk) 02:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Bravo,TrumanLA. Truly well written and thought-out commentary to this embarrassing Wikipedia article. I echo all of your points and concerns,though I could not have said it as well as you did. I hope to see more of your work here on Wikipedia. Thank you for your service. Akroteria (talk) 15:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:WALLOFTEXT. Someone who&#39;s wrong on the internet (talk) 08:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Equitable Futures - Internet Cultures and Open Access
— Assignment last updated by Editi2000 (talk) 02:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Racist dogwhistle statements in the article with no further important context to explain the statistics
It has been proven that statistics can be misused and presented in a way that makes it discriminatory and sometimes directly false when it is portreyed without context or further information.

This article has statements such as "According to the National Crime Victimization Survey in 2002, robberies with white victims and black offenders were more than 12 times more common than the opposite" without context such as institutional racism making the statistics the way they are.

Of course there's going to be more statistics filed in an area where there's more black people, which again makes the number of rapports go up. One of the main messages of defund the police is that more policing means more active policing in an area, often black areas, more police brutality and more stereotyping in politics where the solution always is to add more police in black neighborhoods, which again boost hassle and confrontations, and boost statistics.

The notion that blacks are more criminal is in the same area as race and intelligence and is misleading at best. But when statistics is paraded like this, it is basically pushing these stereotypes and is a racist dogwhistle.

Another context to keep in mind is the fact that it has been shown again and again that police have prejudice and will tend to racially profile black men. This will often lead to false arrests, and false statistics. For every topic covered, there needs to be context and explanations. Thank you for listening/reading.

Why Statistics Don’t Capture The Full Extent Of The Systemic Bias In Policing 2A01:799:1B9B:C300:81B1:8DA0:2495:32BD (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)