Talk:Race and crime

Single POV, useless article

This page is POV pushing from beggining to end.

• POV of existence of biological races
• POV of biological determination of crime
• promotion of sociobiology and notoriously racist works as only source
• exclusion of data that does not fit racist genetic determination POV:
• absence of arrest/conviction/sentence rate comparison
• absence of distinction of crime types (which means overstaying a visa = crime = rape)

etc.

This page should not be taken as anything more than white supremacist propaganda, in its present state. Jagiello (talk) 03:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Everything is sourced. If you have an opposing view with a reliable source, then please add it to the article.Miradre (talk) 03:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The Handbook of Crime Correlates, a review of 5400 studies is certainly not racist. Violent crimes are differentiated from other crimes. The possibility of bias is discussed. Regarding Rushton, maybe some consider him a racist, but this does not invalidate a simple compilation of INTERPOL data regarding violent crimes published in peer-reviewed journals.Miradre (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I should have said "only source for causal explanation". I should also have mentioned that the article, for some reason, fails to discuss the correlation of "race and crime" on the side of the victims, with the strange exception of "20th century genocide victims" quote. And, also the presentation of IQ tests as a reliable, unbiased measure of intelligence (a concept scientists still struggle to define, let alone measure). Give me some time to research and write the required edits, as this article needs a complete rework, considering it is geared towards the only goal of proving subaltern racial groups inherent criminality. Jagiello (talk) 04:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The validity of race and IQ are discussed in those articles. Not sure what the point is regarding simple crime statistics. Everyone agrees that income and occupations are social constructions, yet everyone agree that there are differences and that one can study different incomes for different occupations.Miradre (talk) 04:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

So because they are debated in their respective pages mean that they can (must?) be accepted as unquestioned truths on this page? Yes, a long nose is different from a short nose. Yes you can measure with all sorts of mathematical tools the correlation between nose length and cabbage consumption. That still doesn't make it science. And yet, here we're talking about fairly reliable variables.

Race is the least reliable variable you could imagine: legal and popular classifications vary tremendously across states and regions and change over time, and methods for attribution of race can be very different and quite unreliable too. "Crime" is not a lot more reliable variable. There are stark discrepancies between reporting rate, arrest rate, conviction rate between themselves and across countries, and depending on the offense, and yes, depending on what the race, gender and class of the victim and perpetrator are in the eye of the police and justice system. Jagiello (talk) 04:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Obviously we cannot repeat very long articles here. That race is a disputed concept is already mentioned. Regarding race, regardless of how society defines race, geographic ancestry stays the same, which is what racialists often mean with race. Certainly there are differences such as those you mention, but can they explain the consistent racial differences across nations, even when not looking at minorities but at groups of nations like Rushton did? If you have sources giving explanations, including for why East Asians have lower crime rates both when looking at East Asian nations and also when East Asians are minorities, then do include them.Miradre (talk) 04:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I certainly cannot account for a "fact" that is non existent from beginning to end outside the minds of some. "East Asians" have only existed for a few centuries (under different names and delimitations) in the eye of western classifications and those that are derived from them. They are a category, not a group. Even if you accept that the category is analytically valid (and valid as a world category, which only the worst academics will accept), we cannot fail to notice that, to take a random statistics, intentional murder rates are 1.02 for Japan, 5.9 for Thailand and 7.9 for Mongolia, shocking differences for a racialist (not for someone who knows about the incomparable sociology and history of Mongolia, Thailand and Japan, and not as much as Burkina Faso's 0.5 vs. Burundi's 37), which will likely force the said racialist to either ignore data or split East Asians into racial subgroups with different "genes" to preserve the racial superiority narrative. In a US context if you divide the racial "Asians" into ethno/national categories, you end up with very different profiles: "Hmong" as a category correlates with incomparably higher crime rates than "Japanese". I can use whatever correlation I want with whatever categories I want, ignoring whatever data does not fit to construct whatever reality I want.

What this article does is creating the reality that whatever "racial groups" white societies create and ascribe inferiority to are prone to crime, for biological reasons. I could selectively use correlations of "white race" and "white collar crime", make up a nice story about "white genes" and create the reality that "white people" are biologically prone to be fraudsters, embezzlers and tax evaders (and imply that they should not be given managerial/accounting positions). That would be an equally stupid, unscientific claim, that you would have no trouble to disprove. The only difference is that this claim would obviously be extremely unpopular, unlike that of your article, and that everybody would be hell-bent on disproving it. Jagiello (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Linkage tree and genetic distance matrix for the 9 main population clusters in the 1994 study The History and Geography of Human Genes by Cavalli-Sforza et al.

Yes, Northeast Asians form a group that is genetically distinct from Southeast Asians. That is from a biological analysis of genes. Not a social construction. Current social groups may be social constructions. Ancestries are biological realities.Miradre (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

let us be clear we [...] do not give the clustering obtained in [this and other figures] any "racial" meaning, for reasons discussed in the first chapter. Clusters were formed for reducing the complexity of the data and were given specific names in order to simplify discussion. (p.80). You're misusing the source to promote a view that is not supported by it. Jagiello (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, obviously all genetic researchers are very careful to avoid mentioning race. Not surprising considering that a Nobel Prize winner and discoverer of DNA was essentially fired and forced to make a public apology for stating that a lower intelligence in Africa is one explanation for the poverty there. Regardless, others have argued that this research is in fact evidence for the existence of races. See Race differences in intelligence which see the clusters from the book as races.Miradre (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Others being... People like Richard Lynn. A man whose whole career has been about defending and promoting white racism, who sits in the board of the racist, eugenist Pioneer Fund. To you this is the Gospel, spoken by embattled warriors of truth or whatever, but to most in the scientific community it is a pure and simple fraud (at every level: simple-minded working assumptions, laughable methodology and conclusions). Readers of Wikipedia should be made aware of what the minority and majority scientific views are. On a side note, I would like to see how you deal with Lynn's predecessors in the field who consistently relegated Italians (not even acknowledging northern Italian superiority!) and other south Europeans to racial separateness and inferiority. Early errors happened, but the fundamentals were sane, I suppose. Jagiello (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks are interesting but not relevant for scientific status. Mistakes made in old research is not relevant for current status. As Arthur Jensen has stated, criticizing intelligence research by bringing up old mistakes is like criticizing the auto industry by criticizing the performance of the Model T.Miradre (talk) 20:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This is pig-ignorant POV-pushing pseuoscientific crap, plain and simple. This article takes no account whatsoever of the obvious alternative explanations for differences in crime rates between 'races' (not that it attempts to define the concept, for the very good reason that any definition is incompatible with the argument presented). Unless and until these alternate explanations are given due weight in the article (which would then have to note that the biological 'explanations' were fringe theories), this article is incompatible with Wikipedia standards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, the articles notes that many sociological explanations for the racial differences have been proposed for the US differences and refer to that article for those. If there are theories explaining the different crime rates on a worldwide scale, unlike just for the US, then please add them with sources.Miradre (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I've no intention whatsoever of doing anything which would give these racist theories credibility. They aren't science-based so don't need to be countered with scientific arguments. See WP:FRINGE for guidance on how such subjects should be dealt with. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Adding alternative theories would decrease the credibility of biological theories. Anyway, for example the IQ theory is not necessarily a biological theory. Malnutrition in children -> lower IQs -> more crime. An entirely environmental theory.Miradre (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggesting that this garbage needs countering with 'alternative theories' would give it more credibility than it deserves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I have clarified the text to note that the IQ theory may completely environmental. I hardly think for example the Handbook of Crime Correlates, a review of 5200 studies in criminology, is garbage.Miradre (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you not understand that correlation is no indication of causality? Your 'clarification' is totally unsourced, and only discusses one of many possible explanations. It takes as read the frequently-debated idea that 'IQ' is a valid measure of intelligence in a broad sense, and ignores the demonstrable cultural biases in IQ testing. Your 'sociological theories' section is again completely unsourced, and looks like something you wrote off the top of your head. I note that you also seek to demolish the very concept you are supposedly describing here, with an arbitrary aside regarding 'East Asians'. This is entirely typical of the editing behaviour of a POV-pushing fringe theorist, and totally unbecoming of someone attempting a neutral discussion regarding a minority theory of questionable scientific status. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I have added links and a note about criticisms against IQ and genetic explanations. If these theories are minority theories regarding worldwide crime differences, then I hope you can add sourced material showing this as well as giving alternative explanations.Miradre (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I have now posted a comment here Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Race_and_crime in order to attract input from others. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Jagiello (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The article has also now been proposed for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Race_and_crime_(3rd_nomination). AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Those wanting to delete the article are now doing mass deletions, including of whole sections leading to subarticles [1], so I urge everyone to look at the article as it looked when nominated: [2]Miradre (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

cultural view

There are clearly correlations between race and crime rates. This seems like a perfect page for liberal egalitarians like me to demonstrate how we can explain these correlations through sociology, rather than biology. If this page has only one viewpoint, that's the fault of the editors. It doesn't mean that the topic itself is bogus. Where are honest readers going to find out that the correlation is sociological, if not on this page? Leadwind (talk) 00:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if anyone could explain 'race' through biology, rather than sociology/anthropology. It isn't up to supporters of mainstream science to argue with POV-pushing fringe SPAs. (and, just out of interest, how closely related are you to Miradre?... Only kidding - in joke for participants in the Evolutionary psychology talk page custard-pie fight ;) ) AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Even if race was only a social construct it would still be possible to study crime rates for it. Just like one can do for nations, or classes, or other social constructs.Miradre (talk) 04:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Andy, I haven't run across Miradre until recently. Any similarity to persons living or dead is purely coincidental. As long as editors refer to RSs and humbly stick to policy, I don't much care about their political leanings or personal viewpoints. It's a good sign that we can kid because these are serious topics that sometimes raise hostile feelings. (Maybe you've noticed.) Anyway, to support the cultural view, I can quote Encyclopedia Britannica Online: '“Race” is today primarily a sociological designation, identifying a class sharing some outward physical characteristics and some commonalities of culture and history.' In other words, race isn't much related to inner, psychological characteristics (in the majority view). The Race article on EBO should be a useful resource for defining the majority viewpoint, which is that race is primarily a social phenomenon, not a clear-cut biological one. Please see Race (human). As Miradre says, even if race isn't biological (and perhaps especially if it's not biological), there's still something relevant to say about race and crime. Leadwind (talk) 04:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course that race is biological. It is the equivalent of subspecies in taxonomy. How can something so obvious be mere social construct? Such a claim is ridiculous. Even a child can detect the obvious physical differences between members of different races. If the proverbial “man from Mars” were to visit Earth he would readily see that human beings come in different varieties. If he went to northern China, he would notice that most of the people living there have a yellowish tinge to their skins, straight black hair, very little body hair, and a configuration of their eyelids that give them a slightly “slant-eyed” appearance etc. There are also big differences in average intelligence, cranial capacity etc. Nobody denies that there are transitions between races, but that doesn't change the reality that races do exist.--85.161.195.111 (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Just for your information. If a man [sic] came from Mars, there's no way he'd come up with contemporary white European or North American racial classifications, which are the product of a very specific, located history, and are continuously albeit slowly being reshaped to fit the changing socio/racial order. Unless, obviously, Martians receive American TV channels. Just because there are "differences" doesn't mean there are natural groups and categories. Humans create categories by attributing salience and meaning to a limited number of physical traits (e.g. skin color, hair texture), but also a lot to sociocultural traits (clothing, language variety), with the function of justifying persisting inequalities and exploitation in a context that demands fairness and equality (i.e. modernity). You can do that with genetic variance too, by selecting just the thresholds of genetic variance that will fit the racial classification you had in mind before starting your research - although you'll have to bend half the data into a pretzel and ignore the other half ("for the sake of simplicity and clarity") to have all of the groups you want neatly separated. Jagiello (talk) 01:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Further to this, 'race' is not "the equivalent of subspecies in taxonomy". There are no scientifically recognised subspecies in Homo sapiens. Any attempt at such a classification would fall at the first hurdle - taxonomic variations have no distinct boundaries. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You can't be serious. American Indian remains American Indian - member of the mongoloid race, no matter how he is clothed or what language he speaks. An an Alsatian can't decide to become a chiuaua. People of mixed race can "choose" their race, but biologically they remain just mixed people of two or more races. To AndyTheGrump: I don't really understand you. Subspecies have certain bounderies, which can of course change. Subspecies is equivalent to race or breed.--85.162.58.152 (talk) 04:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You are incorrect. You claimed that "race is biological. It is the equivalent of subspecies in taxonomy". I pointed out that biologists don't recognise the existence of human subspecies. Do you know more about taxonomy than taxonomists? In any case, this discussion would be better placed on the talk page of our article on race. Unless you can provide reliable sources (e.g. from mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journals) that support your contention, it is irrelevant. Wikipedia does not base articles on what people claim to 'know', but on what the sources tell us. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect. At least some biologists consider race as subspecies. Even Darwin considered races of man as subspecies. See Race_(classification_of_humans)#Race_as_subspecies.--85.162.96.241 (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Darwin's views are irrelevant, what matters is what is the predominant view in biology now and the very broad majority of evolutionary biologists and anthropologists agree that there is no way in which the human species can be meaningfully said to have subspecies. You are betting (and beating) on a dead horse.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Current biology and anthropology have chosen the way of race denial. Since WW2 Jews push the public opinion in this way, but race has ever existed and will exist, no matter what they say.--85.162.143.218 (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, but we have no need for it here, except as it is based in wikipedia policies and reliable sources. Please take your soapbox elsewhere.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to pick one random thing that is wrong with this article

The amount of property damage from a fire is positively related to the number of firemen that show up to put out the fire. Ergo, the property damage is caused by insane berserking, probably drunk, firemen who cause havoc and destroy property amidst a fire and if your house ever catches on fire you should refrain from calling the fire department.

Now, aside from the second part of the last sentence, I can find the data, "source it" and write an article suggesting that there is a link between firemen and property damage. Of course it'd be total SYNTH original research POV junk (and a major exercise in a classic logical fallacy) but it'd look "sourced" and legitimate.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

If there were a large number of academic articles and empirical evidence finding this to be the case, then Wikipedia could certainly have an article on this. But this is not case so we cannot have such an article. Now for race and crime we have many academic articles on the subject. Furthermore, the evidence is not "correlations". It is like saying that income correlates with occupations. Different occupations have different incomes. Different races have different crime rates according to academic research.Miradre (talk) 03:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is not the lack of sources but rather how they are (mis)represented in this article - or, in fact omitted. And your analogy is not quite apt. The correlation between race and crime pretty much disappears once other factors are taken into account - just like the bogus correlation between number of firemen and property damage. Same thing is not true for occupations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

What is misrepresented and omitted? Please state this so it can be fixed. If you have source for your claims, then please state them so this view can be included.Miradre (talk) 03:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

"the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread": Anatole France [3]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what your point is? Are you arguing that the novel "The Red Lily" should be included as a source? Miradre (talk) 03:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm arguing that the evidence suggests that if you are looking for correlations with crime, social inequality is a good place to start looking. Actually, if you want to understand what 'race' is, you'd do well to start looking in the same place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Social inequality is already included in the article as a possible theory. That race is a controversial is also included.Miradre (talk) 03:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

A neutral article on 'causes of crime' would give appropriate weight to contesting theories, according to their acceptance by the scientific community (see WP:FRINGE). Instead, this article presents 'race' (and IQ as an objective measure of intelligence) as mainstream, and relegates any alternatives to the sidelines - while utterly ignoring the strong observed correlations between social inequality and crime. It takes as proven the very things it seeks to demonstrate. In other words, it is pseudoscientific garbage, driven by a particularly obnoxious political agenda that seeks to blame inequality on those who suffer most from it. If you want to push this claptrap, try Conservapedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

To their credit, AFAIK, a lot of Conservatives blame crime on break down of the traditional family, which they in turn blame on government policies and loose morals (i.e. the hippies). The non-crazy ones tend to leave race out of it. Here, this isn't even "conservatism", it's just WP:FRINGE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You make many claims without sources. Regarding race I will just note that outside US anthropology many scientists accept race as a reality as described in the Race (classification of humans) article. Even in US anthropology forensic anthropologists accept race as real. Anthropologists in many nations outside the US accept race as real. Again see the race article for sources. I note again that the article already have a source and statement about the theory regarding social inequality and race. If you have more sourced information, then please add it to the article.Miradre (talk) 04:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, the Race (classification of humans) article, with the "The neutrality of this article is disputed". template at the top of the page. Which you yourself seem to have edited a great deal lately. Do you really think that you can cite yourself as a source? As for 'anthropology outside the US', I happen to know enough about the subject to cite myself too: this is utter bollocks. Or if it isn't let us see the sources... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess I could just copy the entire section here but that seems unnecessary. See Race_(classification_of_humans)#Current_views_across_disciplines and the sources given there.Miradre (talk) 04:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Or you could just copy this closing quote: "The survey shows that the views of anthropologists on race are sociopolitically (ideologically) influenced and highly dependent on education". Race is a social construct. End of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The study does not say that race is a social construct. It says that the views of anthropologists on race are sociopolitically (ideologically) influenced and highly dependent on education.Miradre (talk) 05:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The study does not say that race is a social construct. - well, Conservapedia does say it [4] ;) (I just looked it up to see what was going on over there).Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

What has Conservapedia got to do with this? It is not a reliable sources. I have given many sources showing that the rejection of race as a biological concept is mainly limited to some parts of US anthropology. In the rest of science, including even parts of US anthropology, many scientists accept race as a biological reality.Miradre (talk) 05:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It was a (illustrative) joke. Anyway, I see that you've been busy at the Race (classification of humans) article but all that means is that there is another problematic article someone should check. Even just in the section you link to above there's widespread problem with cherry picking sources and undue weight and maybe even outright misrepresentation of sources (George Gill).Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You make many claims without any supporting sources. I have added peer-reviewed sources which support what is stated. What exactly is problematic or incorrect? Miradre (talk) 06:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

What are these unsupported claims I have made? I wasn't making any claims (here) - but I can in fact read a source and compare it to what is presented in the article and realize that the source is being misued. I can also see that a single source of a particular outlook is being given a lot more prominence then many other source of another outlook.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

What source is misused? What single source is being given more prominence than many other sources of another outlook?Miradre (talk) 06:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

As I already said above, the one on George Gill. And that's just one example.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

How is it a misrepresentation? Here is the source: [5] Miradre (talk) 06:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Murder, 6, 5, and 9?

In Statistics/Worldwide, what does something like "murder, 6, 5, and 9" mean? Were 6 Indigenous Australians, 5 Black People, and 9 Caucasians murdered in Interpol countries in 1986? Without explanation what these numbers stand for, this section is totally incomprehensible.  --Lambiam 16:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The text does state "crime rates per 100,000 people for groups of nations with similar racial composition".Miradre (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Getting out the wiki-axe

The result of the AFD was to severely chop the content. I'm going to take a rather extreme approach to this and just chop out everything but the lead. This is not to say that all the content removed is inappropriate, but rather that it all needs to be carefully reviewed and the references checked, which is a little beyond the normal duties of an AFD closer. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)