Talk:Anthropological criminology/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

We need authors, full titles, publishers, dates. Authors alone and broken links do not suffice. I presume these were in better order sometime in the past. --Wfaxon (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

What happened to the Race and Crime article and its discussion pages? It seems like some type of censorship to me that is going on here172.131.61.32 20:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this is blatant censorship. Just because you don't like something doesn't make it untrue.

Well, I guess there are some folks who simply dislike racism and don't want racist crap to be apart of the discussion. (User: 17:36 06/13/2007)

WP:NOTCENSORED Mortician103 (talk

) 01:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason why race should be mentioned on this page, as race has nothing to do with a genetic predisposition to commit crime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.178.186 (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The evidence that was scrubbed from this article suggests otherwise. 66.244.80.7 (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It's where it always was: Talk:Race and crime. Would you like me to move it to an archive here? Verbal chat 23:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Note ther article history is still available at

Talk:Anthropological_criminology/Archive/Race_and_crime. Verbal chat

18:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

If Race and crime is going to redirect here, I think this article needs to cover the statistics regarding this, and possibly also some of the political issues that have been raised regarding those statistics. In their most recent form, the statistics are described here.

As I've said before, the fact that certain ethnic groups are over-represented in prisons is a major political issue, so I think it's pretty clear that it meets Wikipedia's standards for notability. Apparently, the reason this information has been removed so many times is because some of it came from a "hate group", but I'm not able to see that problem in the version of the statistics that I linked to. All of the sources listed there are either mainstream newspapers or governmental offices.

If this information needs to be altered in order to make it NPOV, I would like some specific suggestions on what alterations are necessary in order to accomplish this.

--Captain Occam (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Do we have a

WP:RS that has analysed these statistics? We shouldn't present raw data. Sorry I don't have time to look myself right now. Verbal chat

16:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's what I've been able to find so far: one article from the American Law Library, one article from Penn University, and one article from City Journal. There are also numerous books that cover this topic.

There are probably more than just these, though. You might want to look for yourself at some point. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Since you don’t appear to have anything else to say about this, there’s something else I’d like to propose.

Since all of the statistical information had been removed from the Race and crime article several months before it was merged with Anthropological criminology, by the time the merge was proposed that article no longer contained any information which couldn’t be merged into this one. However, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the statistical information belongs in this article also. Anthropological criminology is a single, somewhat archaic way of interpreting these statistics, and it has very little to do with the current debate about them.

At the moment, Wikipedia does not have an article about the current debate on this topic. If I’m going to modify the coverage of these statistics to include the analysis of them, I think it should go in its own article. Obviously I can’t use the title “Race and crime” for the new article, but I could title it something else, and then we can discuss whether “Race and crime” should redirect to that article or this one.

If you have a problem with me doing this, please let me know so that we can discuss it. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Two of the three sources above are not

WP:RS - the blog post and the city magazine. The other I have not yet been able to asses where it was published, what perr review took place, etc. At the moment I'd be against starting another article on this topic. Verbal chat

08:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

City Journal is a

WP:RS

, articles from news organizations may be used as sources, as long as opinions in them are described as such.

If you have a problem with creating a new article despite what I've described, please tell me what it is. --Captain Occam (talk) 11:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

All right, since you don't appear to have any further objections, I’ve created the new article and added links to Anthropological criminology in the relevant places. Feel free to update the new article if you can improve it, but please don’t delete properly sourced information without first obtaining consensus for it.

I must say, I find your behavior as regards this topic a little puzzling. You’re clearly knowledgeable about Wikipedia’s policies, but both here and elsewhere you’ve shown me several examples of claiming that material is in violation of Wikipedia’s policies even though Wikipedia’s policies explicitly allow it. I’m not sure what the reason for this is, but I recommend that you read Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. --Captain Occam (talk) 09:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Two issues. 1, Propose here in new sections what text you want added to this article, and include a justification. 2, To recreate the Race and crime article you can't just create a similarly named article and copy the content there from the history. You'll have to establish a new consensus (in a new section here) to remove the redirect protection and to recreate the article. Verbal chat 10:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The new article is not about the same topic that Race and crime covered when it was merged into this article. After you had removed the statistical information (without consensus, and based on the erroneous that Wikipedia's policies disallowed it), what was left was a discussion of the outdated methods which had been used to study the connection between Race and Crime more than 50 years ago. That was what was merged into Anthropological criminology, and I suppose the merge may have been appropriate. But that leaves a void for an article on the current debate regarding these statistics.

I don't know how to make this any clearer. There was never any consensus to get rid of the statistical information, nor was there ever consensus to merge the statistical information into this article. The only thing for which there was consensus was to merge the information from your truncated version of Race and crime into this article, and I haven't altered that. What I have done is created an article on a topic separate from the topic of the article that was merged into this one, and whether the article that was merged into this one used to cover this topic is irrelevant.

Please don't revert my edits again without specifically addressing this. --Captain Occam (talk) 10:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid the neutral admin that protected the redirect disagreed, explicitly stating there was consensus. Are you aware of the last Race and crime AfD result? You will have to overturn that consensus. Verbal chat 10:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

What consensus was this? The only consensus I've seen was the one to merge Race and Crime into this article, after the statistical information had already been removed from Race and crime several months earlier. --Captain Occam (talk) 10:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I've found the most recent Race and crime AfD result here. However, the admin there stated no such thing; the result of that discussion was "No consensus". You were involved in that discussion, so you should know this.

The fact that you’re lying about this will not look good to other editors if we end up needing to involve a third party. I recommend that you not continue reverting my edits unless you can come up with a legitimate reason for doing so, which truthfully addresses what I’ve said here. --Captain Occam (talk) 11:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

To recreate the Race and crime article you will have to do it properly, not by recreating the material under a different name. To quote the log from Race and crime "15:30, 9 March 2009 RegentsPark (talk | contribs) m (40 bytes) (Changed protection level for "Race and crime": Switching to indef. (My bad. Misread talk page and there is clear consensus.)". A first step would be to speak to RegentsPark or develop a new consensus here, as this was the target article. Verbal chat 12:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Protected redirect

The new article (this) doesn't seem that different from the old to me. I'm keeping the protection (and protecting the new redirect as well) for the time being, at least until a new consensus develops. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 13:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The way I understand this, the only consensus that ever occurred was to merge Race and Crime with Anthropological criminology after all of the statistical information had already been removed from the first article. By that point, Race and crime no longer contained any content which wasn't a duplicate of what was already in Anthropological Criminology. What I'm looking to do is create an article that covers the statistical information which was removed from Race and crime in 2008. For that information in particular, there was never any consensus to merge it into Anthropological criminology.

The controversy regarding race and crime definitely meets the standards of Wikipedia:Notability. Since there was never any consensus to avoid discussing these statistics, why is it necessary to avoid creating an article about them? --Captain Occam (talk) 13:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need an article that contains only statistical information relating race and crime. Raw statistics suffer from a selectivity bias and, by remaining unexplained, don't provide the contextual information that is important in an encyclopedia. The correct thing to do is to integrate the statistics into various sections of this, or some other article. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 13:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I wasn’t intending for the article to article contain only the statistics and nothing else. That was most of what my new article contained because I’d only created it a few hours ago, but what I’d like there to be is an article about the political controversy regarding these statistics, and the various explanations that have been proposed to explain them.

There’s an article describing this controversy here. President Obama also weighed in on this issue during his campaign, in his speech about Jeremiah Wright’s comments. If I’m going to describe the controversy surrounding these statistics, where on Wikipedia do you think would be the most appropriate place for it? --Captain Occam (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

If it's a work in progress, why not put it in your userspace, work on it (add analysis from RS, remove raw stats as above), and then ask for review? Verbal chat 14:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Because I was hoping for other users to contribute to it on their own, rather than just review it. That's unlikely to happen if it's in my userspace.

You seem really adamant that the statistics need to be excluded, but nobody other than you thinks this. All that RegentsPark has said about this is that the statistics shouldn't be the only thing in the article. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Stats should be included when contextualised by RS, to avoid selection bias and other forms of POV. If you link to your useespace version here, and put a note at the top saying people can edit it, then I don't see the problem. Whenever you make large changes you could drop a note here. Many articles start off this way, especially protected articles that need rehabilitating. Verbal chat 15:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll consider that idea, but first I'd like to wait and see what RegentsPark has to say in response to my question. If he decides it's appropriate to let us create a new article about this controversy, that's still what I'd prefer. He also might decide it would be best for the explanation of this issue to go in another article entirely, and in that case I'd like to know which of them. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

(cut and paste of my response from my talk page) My suggestion is that you do what verbal suggests, which is create an article in userspace. You don't have to create the entire article, just enough to demonstrate that the article is substantially different from the original Race and crime (and worth keeping!). Then, perhaps, you can either convince verbal or look for consensus on the talk page of anthropological criminology. On this particular topic I would rather judge consensus than judge content.

(additional comment) I'm open to unprotecting Race and crime if there is enough support to do so. The bar is fairly low because the article can always be taken back to AfD. I think the best thing to do is to create something in userspace as verbal suggests and encourage others to contribute to the userspace version as well. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 21:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we really talk about the 1930s as being "Modern Times"? I think part of that section needs to be moved. Blueboar (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

as opposed to "pre-modern"? Anything after the 1720s, or definitely the 1780s, would be "modern" in this sense. --

dab (𒁳)

11:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Race and crime should be merged here. Jstor article on the relation between both; Corrupting a Good Mix: Race and Crime in Late Nineteenth- and Early Twentieth-century Spain; other article; Journal of Black Studies (subscription); etc. Tazmaniacs 23:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Another possibility might be

I would prefer to see it merged to crime statistics, because that's the bulk of the article focuses on that, and anthropological criminology seems to be pretty archaic. Joie de Vivre 17:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I would leave it as its own article.Colemangracie 20:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with merging the race and crime section here. Merging it with crime statistics would not work either. You're confusing a correlation between race and crime (which is the case) to believing in a causation between race in crime (which is what Anthropological criminology is about). There's a relation between the two, because Anthropological criminology is a outdated theory used to explain the facts mentioned in race and crime. Saying they should be merged is like saying that carbon dioxide should be merged with Phlogiston theory. Paladinwannabe2 15:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The circumstances surrounding race and crime's effective deletion are shady at best. The two official votes came to no deletion and no consensus, and a short merge vote on the discussion page of the article had a minimal amount of votes and no explicit majority rule. The "merge" into Anthropological criminology simply resulted in the permanent deletion of race and crime. It seems like there was an ongoing effort to delete it regardless of quality due to politically correct censorship. race and crime needs to be restored ASAP. It's a different subject than Anthropological criminology and very well studied. Mortician103 (talk) 01:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Race and Crime is a different subject from Anthropological criminology. There are scholarly sources for it and it deserves it's own article. Do not confuse a poorly written article with a bad article. Race and Crime needs work but should stay it sown article. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I've proposed that Race and crime in the United States be merged into this article. Comments welcome here. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 16:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Conversely, if you'd like to add to the article, please do drop by and lend us a hand. As the article develops, it's becoming clear - to me at least - that a merge is less likely to take place, and we could use some editors who are interested in building the article instead of ... well, all the rest of what makes Wikipedia what it is. :P —Aryaman (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

For this:

Certain studies into tattoos in particular have been made^[1] with the result that some rehabilitation programs^[2] promote the removal of tattoos to help individuals disassociate themselves from criminal organizations. Studies have also been made of a link between general physical attractiveness and crime.^[3]

The article does not provide complete citations so it is hard to verify this. Anthropological criminology is not a serious branch of anthropology today. Forensic anthropology, however, is. This is because morphology really is helpful in identifying victims - it was never helpful in identifying criminals.

Slrubenstein | Talk 12:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061009044430/http://faculty.ncwc.edu:80/TOConnor/301/301lect03.htm to http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/301/301lect03.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Cfairwal.

Above undated message substituted from