Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and crime (3rd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep but severly chop content is the only consensus I can see emerging here. There is general agreement that the article is deeply flawed, but there is not a clear cut consensus on how to proceed. Several users have suggested a "middle road" solution of keeping the article but chopping it down to eliminate the most problematic parts. That's the closest thing I can see to a result that addresses the valid arguments advanced by both the "keep" and "delete" camps here. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Race and crime

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Race and crime
• Articles for deletion/Race and crime (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Race and crime (3rd nomination)

Race and crime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

OMG lets see how many policies of are broken here , WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH, WP:FRINGE, I really cant see this article ever being neutral a classic WP:COATRACK. This is a classic scenario groups/books/people should be covered in those articles per WP:ONEWAY The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:56, 4 Apr

Keep The material is sourced to peer-reviewed studies. That crime rates differ is not disputed. The different theories may disputed but that is not a reason for deletion. The topic is obviously notable and important.Miradre (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that those critical of the article are deleting entire sections linking to whole subarticles on the topic, see [1][2], of so I suggest everyone to look at version at time of the deletion nomination: [3]Miradre (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no cohesive concept of correlation any between Race and Crime this article is WP:SYNTH mishmash tangically related data and theories that really have nothing to do with each the idea is only advanced by fringe groups. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

That is incorrect. For example, the article cites the Handbook of Crime Correlates which is review of 5400 studies in criminology. Many other peer-reviewed articles are also cited, unless they are deleted by those opposing this article. Again, I urge everyone to look at the original version at the time of the deletion nomination.Miradre (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

(talk)•(contribs) 22:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I actually have the source in front of me (one the great things about a working an academic library) and you are grossly taking the data provided there out of context. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The handbook? I also have it in front of me. What are you disagreeing about?Miradre (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Specifally what the hell are you citing page number wise? You cited the whole book! I thumbing through it right now I see alot of stuff you could be yanking data from but lets be specific and make sure I aint wrong. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a section on race on starting on page 20. Please do not accuse me of something before you have evidence.Miradre (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect the data provided is not connected with the causality of it being related to race. Its merely one category of data among many. Gross misuse of a source. The Resident Anthropologist

Causality? The handbook states that crimes rates differ for different races as the article also states.Miradre (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete. In addition to contravening the policies that the nominator for deletion has noted, the article has grossly misrepresented other Wikipedia articles in order to promote this racist theory. It contained a link to Race and crime in the United Kingdom with the following commentary: "Different racial/ethnic groups differ in crime rates such as overrepresentation for Afro-Caribbeans". As the UK article itself notes, a Home Office study has shown that once other factors (e.g. age profiles of different groups etc) were taken into account, there was no correlation between ethnicity and crime rates. I have of course deleted this section, but I think further checks would be needed on other parts of the article too, if this is anything to go by. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

If you disagreed with one part of the sentence, you should have removed that part, not the whole section, including the link to the main page.Miradre (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, you misrepresented what the home office report stated. The other factors accounted were for example SES and many similar factors. That different ethnic groups were over- and underrepresented regarding crime was not disputed.Miradre (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. The subject of race and crime receives significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Location (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The article here is presents correlations and causations blurred. The articles cited use Race as category of data collection but do not conclude it causation or "ultimate cause" The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Unclear what you mean. The article does not claim race as "ultimate cause", whatever that means. That crime rates differ is sourced to reliable peer-reviewed sources.Miradre (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly the material describe a correlation not a causation. Its saying in the source talking about context of crime and it indicates data related to race and crime. The way its being presented here as race as the causation of the increased crime rates among that population. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is what for example the Handbook states "According to all of the available evidence, blacks commit more violent offenses than do whites (Table 2.3.2a). The extent of the differences has usually exceeded a ratio of 3:1. Additional evidence that blacks are substantially more involved in violent crime than whites has come from victimization surveys." The article only repeats such statements.Miradre (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You missing the point you are using data that does not prsented th same way you are using it The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs)

How is the text in the article different from what is stated in Handbook? See again my example above.Miradre (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I again note that those wanting to delete the article are doing mass deletions, including of whole sections leading to entire subarticles, so I urge everyone to look at the article as it looked when it was nominated for deletion: [4]Miradre (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC

Yeah when bunk material exists then its yanked The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Deleting an entire section leading to a whole subarticle about the topic is obviously incorrect: [5]Miradre (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Simply put, you are tying together sources and trying to put together a pattern that aint there. When when were the Malori a race? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I have not written anything about Malori or Maori. Why was the entire section about crime in the UK, including a link to the main article deleted? See [6] Miradre (talk) 23:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

But I see that you have done mass deletions of sourced material: [7] I have not written any of that but I disagree with the mass deletion. Why was everything deleted if you do not think Maori are a race? Miradre (talk) 23:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Single fringe POV which can be summed up as: "inferior races are criminal, it's in their genes". Ridiculous lip-service paid to mainstream views ("has been criticized" and that's it) to try and get away with it. If anything, article should be about how pseudo science have tried to link (types of) crime to biological conceptions of race, or how crime as a social issue is exploited in racial politics (which pseudo-science is definitely a part of), or how institutions deal with crime according to the racial classification they ascribe to perpretators & victims. In that view, there is nothing in the present article that is salvageable. Jagiello (talk) 23:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems that you dislike the sourced facts and proposed explanations. That is not a reason for deletion and Wikipedia is not censored. If there are sourced views and material missing, then you should add it to the article.Miradre (talk) 23:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You are both using notoriously fringe racist sources and misusing reliable mainstream sources. When confronted with evidence, you retorted that the reliable sources were "afraid" to support your POV (conversation about diagram). This is not the way wikipedia is supposed to work. Jagiello (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

That was only regarding if races are biologically real or not. That is irrelevant for crime statistics which can be done on any arbitrary group like social classes or occupations which no one would argue are biological concepts.Miradre (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, after searching the literature I found a source giving more sociological theories for worldwide crime differences.[8] Does this resolve your concerns? I should note that there are still large scale deletions of sourced material, including of a link to an entire subarticle, Race and crime in the United Kingdom, so one should also look at what has been deleted. Here is a diff regarding the current situation: [9]Miradre (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• comment I think this is a similar issue to the recent Jews and money Afd. There is a decent article to be written about this topic: this is not it. I am uncertain whether to argue for deletion on the grounds that the current article is difficult to salvage and potentially puts wikipedia in a bad light, or thwther to vote Keep and stubify.. I don't see the problem here being the existence of the article, for me the problem is that we have a user who is very keen on making sure that every possible connection between race, biology and crime is being represented very thoroughly in wikipedia, but who is not apparently similarly interested in representing the opposing viewpoints. This amounts to consistent cherrypicking and povpushing, and there are not currently many editors with an interest in providing the opposing viewpoint, so the coverage quickly becomes heavily slanted towards the particularly biological racialist research that apparently interests this editor, but which does not represent the majority of reserach in the field. ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)All the data centered around Minorities and Crime which potentially is viable article. This one has no viable Neutral content in its entire editing history. linking race and crime is bullshit and ingoring the issue in favor of POV pushing.... It Needs to be cleansed with fire The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Maunus that the article needs evidence on the other side, that crime is primarily a cultural issue. Since we liberals are right on this point, we shouldn't have much problem finding said evidence. Leadwind (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

What would put Wikipedia in bad light is censorship. Obviously the topic is notable. That crime rates differ may be undesirable but is not reason for deletion. Different theories are presented and it is not claimed that anyone is true. If a theory is missing, then please add it. It is unfortunate that many of those critical does not contribute to the article, except doing mass deletions of sourced material as per above, if something is missing as they claim. I am grateful for Leadwind's view and look forward to constructive editing.Miradre (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not censorship, it is about serving the interests of wikipedia. If you were in fact interested in and able to write balancedly and neutrally about the topic of race then wikipedia would clearly profit from your doing so. I have however seen nothing to suggest that that is the case. Wikipedia works when all editors try to work towards balance - not when one editor says I will provide this viewpoint then others can provide the opposing one if they they think it is so important.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

That is not what I said. I have added all significant views I have found. Just now added some material on sociological theories after searching. See [10]. However, I cannot add what is not existing. Furthermore, you are hardly a neutral Wikipedia editor on this subject since you without exception oppose biological theories and prefer social ones on a large variety of articles.Miradre (talk) 00:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

So the reason I am not neutral is because I have been the only one to take up your challenge to provide the opposing viewpoint. That is laughable. Also race related article constitutes a very small portion of my total editing. That is not exactly the case for you.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You also, for example, regularly edit the evolutionary psychology article and talk page and oppose biological views there. That pattern is constant, opposing biological theories in favor of social ones. Not saying that this is wrong but I find it strange that you should judge me regarding neutrality. I would consider myself far more neutral since I add non-biological theories and views whenever I find them in the sources.Miradre (talk) 00:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It is hard to assume good faith in the face of systematic hypercritical and subject-changing tactics. Mirardre will challenge you on the slightest detail until you patiently prove him/her wrong. Then s/he'll declare the whole point irrelevant, and move to another subject. Never integrating criticism, inviting you to doing it yourself then harrassing you for doing it. Attrition war and treading on the limits of wiki etiquette hoping you'll cross it yourself is the tactics here. Communication tactics are being methodically used here, be careful not to waste your time and energy. Jagiello (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

That I do not include criticism if false since I regularly do that and try to include the views I find the sources. If you have specific complaint please give a diff and I will reply. Thanks.Miradre (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You've started doing it only when your creature began to face the prospect of deletion. It seems you have concessions in store that you are willing to deploy when cornered. I am amazed at all the information and references you could come up with to give the appearence of "ballance" once your project was threatened with deletion, when before that you would state if you know of alternative POV and sources feel free to add them - as if you didn't know them yourself. You have a very well planned strategy but it is not opaque. Jagiello (talk) 01:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

That is incorrect. If I wanted to include only the views of one side, then when I cited the Handbook of Crime Correlates I should only have mentioned official crime rates which all shows racial differences. But instead I also included the opposing views from self-reported offending. On the other hand, some of those disliking unpleasant views have simply mass deleted sourced information they dislike or links to entire subarticles on this topic.[11][12] If anyone should be censured, it is such editors.Miradre (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. Those of us liberals who maintain that culture, not genetics, is the primary determinant of behavior should have nothing to fear from some statistics. If we're ever going to lay to rest the idea that "race" is the main correlate to crime, this is the very page on which we should do it. If we're confident that we're right, I don't understand why we should be afraid of this challenge to our viewpoint. And if we can only defend out view by forbidding debate, then shame on us. We should be happy to have this page so we can set the record straight. Steven Pinker, for example, demonstrates that the violent crime rate in "white" nations has dropped dramatically in the last few centuries, and that's clearly due to culture, not race. Leadwind (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • As i suggested linking minorities and crime is doable. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
    • It would be convenient for us liberals who favor a sociological view if this page were about "minorities" and crime, but that's missing the point. Some would-be experts say that high crime correlates to race even when that race isn't in the minority. Those would-be experts deserve their shot at making their case based on evidence, and liberals like me should feel confident that the overall data will support a sociological rather than biological explanation for any correlation between race and crime. Leadwind (talk) 05:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The page should at least be emptied before it is reworked. I'm not sure referring to liberal POV is desirable. There are "liberals" who believe in hard genetic determinism, and conversely. As to the culture thing, let's make it clear that it is culture (as the opposite of nature, a vague catch all signifier that includes social structures, relations and so on.) and not cultures (proxy for ethnicity). Ultimately it is probably better to have a relevant page with reliable data rather than see it perpetually re-made for pov-pushing purposes. Jagiello (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The data from for example the Handbook of Crime Correlates, a review of 5200 studies, is reliable. As was much of the other sourced data that has been mass deleted. Absolutely no reason for deletion except if one dislikes the data itself but that is not a valid reason in Wikipedia.Miradre (talk) 00:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Look at the source! it does not back up what you are saying and only <1% of those sources are used in the race section of the book . The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

How does it not back up what the article is saying? Why did you do a mass deletion of sourced material (not added by me)? [13] Miradre (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep While the politically correct may recoil from the subject, it seems to me that it is a genuine one. I would expect to see articles on the links between 'poverty and race' and 'crime and poverty' as well. That is, I personally suspect the underlying explanation for most crime has to do with poverty and perhaps culture, more than race. But i don't know. Sweeping it under the mat given the existence of RS is pathetic. Greglocock (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Look at the sources! They do not back the article its case of WP:SYNTH. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Which source is cited incorrectly?Miradre (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete This article is pure WP:COATRACK. The article had been a redirect, and was recreated by an editor blocked for racist vandalism. That the cause of the article was taken up by a WP:CPUSH editor only makes the situation worse, not better. While it is possible that there may be a good article with this title, there already exist several much better related articles which could be used to develop the topic before splitting it off into it's own page. See the "See Also" in Race and crime in the United States for a list of related articles. aprock (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

How is the article a WP:COATRACK? As far as I can see the article has survived two deletion attempts and nothing there stated that the article should be a redirect. I will also note that you are hardly neutral on this topic and have consistently edited against biological explanations in other articles. So I feel it is strange that you should judge me for neutrality. I always include any opposing views in the sources I find.Miradre (talk) 03:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

If you believe there is a problem of any kind with my editing, please do bring such issues up on the appropriate noticeboard. aprock (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete - I agree with Maunus that it's possible to write a neutral decent article on this subject (mostly about goofy 19th century theories long since debunked) but this isn't it. Given the amount of OR and SYNTH in the article (some of it sneaky and indirect - insinuating a casual relation without claiming one outright, since that would obviously be a red flag that something sketchy's up) it is doubtful if the present version can be salvaged. Were this to be deleted, and someone were to write a different, legitimate, article under the same title - or completely overhaul this one - I might vote keep.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Future ArbCom nightmare, I'm sure... The topic is notable, absolutely. I don't see this as a coatrack. I'm sure honest people can and do differ about the degree that this represents impermissible POV. This strikes me as a "Keep and fix" situation. Carrite (talk) 03:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this already went to ArbCom under the topic of Race & Intelligence. Perhaps some amendments or clarifications could nip this in the butt. I'm pessimistic about the potential for fixing this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Different crime rates for different racial groups is not correlations. It is like saying that different incomes for different occupations if just correlations and does not prove anything for certain regarding the relationship between occupation and income. Different occupations have different incomes. Different races have different crime rates according to academic research.Miradre (talk) 03:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it is just correlations - or "relations" if you'd like, since one variable is categorical - in the sense that the differences largely disappear once other factors are taken into account (from income to persecution rates, etc.). Same thing is not necessarily true for occupations and income, even if you control for "other factors" like, say years of schooling (a 2 year MBA makes more than a 6 year Educational Psychology PhD). Your analogy is false. Other than that I don't see what the parallel between occupations/income and race/crime is supposed to be.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

If you have sources for you claims regarding differences disappearing, then we could include them in the article. What are the sources?Miradre (talk) 03:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Someone also should take a look at Miradre's article on Immigration and crime.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Please do. Do you have sources for your claims above?Miradre (talk) 04:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little wary of being drawn into your game here, since that runs the danger of legitimizing this discussion. With that caveat, there's for example this [14] which states that the race/crime relation disappears once % of single-parent households are controlled for. Also if I remember correctly there's a study by Steven Levitt which shows that once median income, income inequality and % of households headed by women is controlled for the effect of race tend to disappear. Here's a general survey [15] which tells the same story - major determinants of crime are family structure and (neighborhood) income, arrest rates probably have as much to do with how laws are enforced and perceptions by the police and the general public than with actual crime rates, etc. Internationally I'd add in the % of pop that is composed of 18-25 single males. There is a lot more out there, just got to look.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Another one: Economics of race and crime - "Controlling for moral compliance and economic conditions we find that race is not a factor in determining whether individuals engage in crime or not" (more).Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see all of the above refers the US. Not crime rates in other nations or worldwide crime rates. There is a separate article for Race and crime in the United States. This article already notes that there are many explanations proposed for the US racial crimes rates. However, such explanation do not necessarily apply outside the US. More generally, even if racial differences should disappear if you control for many other factors, this does not mean that the overrepresentation itself disappear. So even, if one could explain all of the racial differences in crime with social factors, there would still be an overrepresentation that is important in itself for society to analyze and discuss.Miradre (talk) 05:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Another point it that the textbooks considers race and crime a topic that is noteworthy enough to discuss. So I fail to see why Wikipedia should not.Miradre (talk) 05:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice dodge. Like I said, there's probably a legitimate article there to be written, but this ain't it. If this is deleted and somebody writes a decent, NPOV, not OR, not SYNTH, article on the subject then I'd vote keep - as I've already stated above.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

None of your sources seems to apply to worldwide crime differences. Only the US which is a separate topic. Furthermore, controlling for many social factors does not disprove biology. This is because factors such as the SES of the parents in itself may be due to biological factors so controlling for many such "social" factors may actually remove evidence for biology. Exactly what is OR and SYNTH with current article? The article already includes the view that economic development and social inequality are theories regarding the different crime rates, so what is not NPOV? Miradre (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

"controlling for many social factors does not disprove biology" - I don't know what it means to "disprove biology". Wait, are you really saying that the connection between race and crime is biological?

And yes, my sources apply to US, that's what I know about. But if this connection between race and crime is supposed to be biological then that shouldn't matter.

The SYNTH and OR are in the interpretation of primary sources in the article and in stringing together cherry picked sources, while ignoring many many many other studies out there. This is related to the problem of UNDUE WEIGHT given to a FRINGE "theory". You add all that up and it's pretty hopeless. So delete (or stubify) and then maybe recreate.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I am saying that there are researchers arguing that there is a biological connection between race and crime. Such a possibility is not disproven by controlling for many "social" factors which themselves may have biological ultimate causes. Again, for example parental SES may be in part due to parental biological traits. Furthermore, even if biology was disproven, this does not mean that one cannot study the relationship between race and crime just like one can study the relationship between crime, and, say, class. Please give a specific example of what is SYNTH, OE, or POV. The article includes several sociological theories such as social inequality and economic development. You have given no evidence that for example IQ is a fringe theory that should not be allowed to be mentioned.Miradre (talk) 06:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

And who are these researchers? A couple of fringe writers widely criticized (and even accused of racism) by the general academic community, but who's ideas are given widespread prominence by you in articles you work on. That is the essence of FRINGE and UNDUE. Here's an example - the article uses numbers from J. Philippe Rushton, without mentioning at all the controversy surrounding him or the fact that he "has been criticized by other researchers and civil rights organisations as being poorly researched and racist in nature.". Or that in his application of r/K selection theory Rushton "does not apply the theory correctly, and displays a lack of understanding evolution in general" and "that the sources for the biological data gathered in support of Rushton's hypothesis were misrepresented and that much of his social science data was collected by dubious means." Same for these other "researchers" you've strewn through these articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Despite the impression you and many others have, the best available evidence is that most IQ researchers have the same view as those you call fringe. That is, racial differences are partly due to genetic factors. See The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy (book). Now regarding Rushton's r/K theory, it is certainly controversial, but it does for example have an article of its own in the "Encyclopedia of Race and Crime" (2009) by Greene and Gabbidon. The controversy regarding the theory is mentioned in this article and in the article Race, Evolution, and Behavior which this article links to.Miradre (talk) 06:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Most "IQ researchers" may very well have the same views as those I call fringe but that just makes them fringe - come on, you're using a book about supposed "liberal bias" in academia to support your notion that this stuff is widely accepted or something. The controversy regarding Rushton's (mis)application of the theory in the article is "mentioned" with a paltry "There have been various criticisms of the theory as described in the article on the book" and that's it. And the point is rather that Rushton really shouldn't be used much in the article at all.

Anyway, I see that this discussion has become pointless - you ask for reasons, I give you reasons, you ignore them. You ask for sources, I give you sources, you ignore them. And jump from one detail to another and change (sub)topics. It's a classic case of civil POV pushing and IDIDN'THEARTHAT. I'm tired and not particularly interested in wasting my time any further - all you've done is cement my belief that it'd be best if the article was outright deleted. Otherwise these problems will continue.06:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The only poll ever done on IQ researchers shows that most common view is the one you call fringe. Regarding the r/K theory we obviously cannot repeat all the criticisms here. Neither does this article cite all supporting evidence for the theory. Only the evidence regarding worldwide crime is mentioned. For the rest, the interested reader can read the separate article, where there is more criticism, as this article states. I again note that the r/K theory has a separate article of its own in the "Encyclopedia of Race and Crime" (2009) by Greene and Gabbidon.Miradre (talk) 07:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Delete- Quite a spirited debate, sounds like junk to me Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• Stubify and Rewrite I think that's the best procedure for coatracky POV articles about notable subjects. Qrsdogg (talk) 05:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
• Delete The problems with POV and synthesis are so overwhelming that the article would have to be written from scratch, provided that there are reliable souces to support it. Note that the lead section is unsupported by sources. It says, "An observed correlation between race and crime has been noted in a number of countries...." But there are no sources that provide an overview of this type of observation. Also, the article assumes that racial categories are generally understood, but there is no support for this either. TFD (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I have stated several times now something along the lines of Criminal justice system and minorities, or Simply crime and minorities would be extremely viable articles and Second year Sociology major could write. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  • "But there are no sources that provide an overview of this type of observation." I've added a source to support that now.Boothello (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Seems to be a WP:COATRACK of bits of stuff that together implies a viewpoint that is somewhat creepy. Salvage anything useful, if any, into other articles and delete. --Martin (talk) 23:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - I've had a chance to spend a bit more time with this article. Despite the notable topic, this is a POV-laden catastrophe, highly US-centric in orientation and seemingly racist in fundamental intent. As with the Jews and Money mess, this needs to be blown up and rebuilt from scratch, sticking to the serious mainstream published literature. We've seen this same basic crap before with Race and intelligence and ArbCom may well be seeing it again unless this POV express gets nuked and replaced by something on the topic worthy of Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 03:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - Subjects such as race and crime receives significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Such as in this particular case.. I find not good faith reason to delete this article.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
• Keep and improve - I think it says a lot that this article has survived two previous AFDs. It means the article is plagued with POV problems, but also that the topic is clearly notable and deserves its own article. There are sources that discuss race and crime in a global context, and I added one of them to support the unreferenced statement that TFD pointed out. I've also looked at the AFD that a few people have mentioned for the Jews and money article, and the difference between that article and this one is that several parts of Jews and money misrepresented the source material. On this article, most of the existing content is relevant and well-sourced, and the problem is just that the article doesn't provide enough discussion about social (rather than biological) explanations for racial disparities in crime rates. Therefore, we don't need to get rid of the existing content, someone just needs to add all of the information that's missing.Boothello (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC) — Boothello (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment It is incorrect to say that the article survived 2 AfDs. It was changed first to a redirect and then shortly afterwards to a disambiguation page. Then Giornorosso, an editor subsequently banned for his racist comments, recreated the page using a userfied copy of the deleted article. Mathsci (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not see any requirement in the AfDs that the article should be a redirect.Miradre (talk) 22:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep per Miradre Lionel (talk) 00:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
• Delete or stubify. Miradre is talking here about "peer reviewed sources", but note that s/he added in the daughter article Race and crime in the United States several references to a report by the New Century Foundation, a body "dedicated to the ideal of the United States as a white European nation". There is some clear agenda-pushing going on in these related articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The New Century Foundation never made that statement. Please check sources before making claims. If there is anything wrong with the report, please add it to the article.Miradre (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • A strange double standard to criticize a well-sourced report but at the same time uncritically accept unsourced statements. But then this applies to this whole emotional topic in general.Miradre (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

That statement can be easily sourced to several reliable sources, whether or not you believe that NEw Century Foundation has said this is irrelevant.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Then please give those sources. Regardless, there is certainly a double standard when uncritically accepting an unsourced statement in Wikipedia and while at the same time rejecting a sourced report. Anyway, that an organization may be an advocacy organization for a certain POV is not a reason for excluding reports from it. The articles in Wikipedia has numerous views and reports by various organizations with certain POVs.Miradre (talk) 02:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

"That an organization may be an advocacy organization for a certain POV is not a reason for excluding reports from it". No, one can of course cite it as a source for its own opinions. They should however not be cited as representative of anything other than a fringe point of view, and should be given appropriate weight regarding their lack of recognition in relation to the subject matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Should all advocacy organizations be described as fringe just because they are advocacy organizations? Anti-immigration, pro-immigrations, pro-liberal, pro-conservative, and so on? Or should all interest organizations for ethnic groups be described as fringe? Miradre (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

No, not all advocacy organisations are fringe, but even so, they are only reliable sources for non-contentious information. We apply commonsense and see groups as being on a continuum. Slow Food is an advocacy group but not fringe; the "911 truth" groups advocate a fringe idea; the English Defence League is an extremist source. The group you cited (a number of times) is somewhere on that continuum, and the important point is that you used it to support contentious ideas in an article on a contentious topic. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Maunus: That statement can be easily sourced to several reliable sources, whether or not you believe that NEw Century Foundation has said this is irrelevant.. Miradre: Then please give those sources.. Here you go:

"white supremacist group led by Jared Taylor"

"both the organization and periodical (American Renaissance - VM) dedicated to the ideal of United States as a European white nation"

"far-right fringe", "white supremacist"

Organization's head Jared Taylor "white supremacist", "noted white nationalist"

And there's plenty more out there. Seriously, it's not like it's hard to find sources to show that the source Miradre is putting into these articles are white supremacist racist garbage.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I have put nothing from the New Century Foundation in this article. Only in the Race and crime in the United States article. There is nothing in the policies that prohibits reports on a topic from advocacy groups. Furthermore, per WP:NPOV notable views should be included. This report is widely cited regarding Race and crime in the United States so it qualifies. If you think that the statistics presented in the report are wrong, then please give sources with an opposing views. Ad hominem attacks are not valid. All the figures in the report are based on official statistics and reports on the scientific literature.Miradre (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You asked for sources to support the contention that this "advocacy group", New Century Foundation was a racist, white supremacist group. I just provided these sources. Now you're changing topics and want to discuss "whether the numbers are wrong" - this is a standard POV pushing tactic, when proven wrong or provided with reliable sources pretend the discussion is about something else - and calling these descriptions from sources "ad hominem"; why did you ask for sources to support them then? I have no interest in having any further conversation with you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Even its critics like the ADL admits that it considers Asians superior in intelligence to Europeans, and considers Jews to be valuable contributors, so it certainly does not fit the stereotype of a neo-Nazi or white supremacist group. All claims should be supported by sources, that is standard WP policy. I have not changed tactics. I stated above "Anyway, that an organization may be an advocacy organization for a certain POV is not a reason for excluding reports from it. The articles in Wikipedia has numerous views and reports by various organizations with certain POVs." Obviously there is no defense in policy for excluding notable views from a topic, so I understand if you do not want to continue arguing.Miradre (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The "superior asian" and "non-antisemite" argument is a red herring. Multiple sources describe them as an advocacy, white supremacy and hate group. You did not use it to source "a view" you presented its views as facts. ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

See no mention of hate group in the above sources. Only a few claims of white supremacy which is dubious as per above. For example risk of being in prison is not a view. The same with the Hispanics and whites being counted together.Miradre (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per aprock and Volunteer Marek. Prima facie example of WP:COATRACK, and would take a great deal of time and effort to bring into the realm of WP:NPOV. Harping on a single peer-reviewed source over and over won't change any of that. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • There is certainly more than one peer-reviewed source in the article. Furthermore, some are literature reviews and based on numerous peer-reviewed studies. For example the Handbook of Crime Correlates lists numerous, well over a hundred studies just for black-white crime differences.Miradre (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
    • That doesn't change the simple, stubborn, irreducible fact that the entirety of the article is WP:COATRACKing. The differences described have been attributed to several sources by many scholars, as anyone who's ever taken a basic Sociology course will attest. That said, this article, as it stands, would require a complete rewrite just to make it neutral. Better to bulldoze down to the bedrock and start building anew. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
• Keep, whether or not you agree with the article, it should be obvious that the subject is quite notable.--RaptorHunter (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
• Delete or Stub. I agree with those who say the topic is notable - it is, and a good article about it would be worth having. But this AfD has to decide on this current article, not on the topic, and this article is full of NPOV and SYNTH and would pretty much need to be completely rewritten -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

So go ahead and rewrite it. You don't need to delete it to do that.--RaptorHunter (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

And I don't need to rewrite it in order to voice my opinion here -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep I think it should be obvious the article's topic is suitable, but the concerns seem to be over the page's current condition. Per WP:BEFORE, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD". I don't think this article is hopeless enough for deletion, though, as there are some reasonable sources and workable material in there; I think, however, that the POV/SYNTH stuff should be removed and better content added. I'd do it myself, but my to-do list is already over 100 items long ... /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment With regard to the 'SOFIXIT' argument, I'd point out that if one wishes to write on the factors resulting in differential offending statistics, mainstream sources will only treat 'race' as a fringe theory at best. Essentially this article is a POV-fork on a broader topic, and as such is never going to be able to reflect the wider debate with due weight. That the 'fork' has been created instead of a broader-based article is unfortunate, but the appropriate 'fix' would seem to be to create the broader article, and incorporate (with due weight) whatever reliably sourced material can be salvaged from this article. I'd also point out that since the application of the term 'race' to human populations is highly controversial within the scientific community, the very title of the article is almost certainly a breach of WP:NPOV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

We can always retitle the page and whatnot. But even if race is a fringe theory, as you say, surely we can then have an article that covers the differing views about race and crime? (Even though, I don't think it's a real "fringe theory"; there have been multiple publications about this by people of differing perspectives, e.g. [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25].) If there is a broader article that would be more suitable for this topic to be merged into, I don't see any problem with that, but I don't know which broader article that would be. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but if you extensively rewrite the article (which seems to be what you are suggesting is necessary), and give it a new title, in what way is it the 'old' article at all? A case of Trigger's broom, I'd say. Simpler to start again with a clean slate...

What is so bad with current article that is should be cleaned completely is unclear, except that general revulsion regarding the topic itself.Miradre (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Delete or Stub: WP:COATRACK, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:WEIGHT; clear, willful, and unapologetic misrepresentations of reliable sources and use of sources unreliable for anything but their own views; US-centric, including in definitions of race (and confused even there: Hispanic is a linguistic category); WP:CPUSH and WP:TEND here and on the article's Talk page. Ergative rlt (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. What are "the clear, willful, and unapologetic misrepresentations"?Miradre (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm interested in this, too. I've seen it asserted from multiple editors here that some sort of racist POV is being pushed in this article, yet no evidence has been provided to back-up those assertions. Location (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Some people hold the politically correct view that there is no such thing as race. Therefore any statement which would say otherwise, no matter how well sourced or backed up by statistics, must be a racist misrepresentation.--RaptorHunter (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

That's funny I don't know any such people and I hang around with politically correct people a lot, they all agree that race exists and is very important, several of them even study it for a living.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite The topic is notable, but the actual article is a mess. 'The chances of going to prison based on your race' image needs to be reworded, but as I don't know what the image's source is, I can't change it without the risk of making it incorrect.- SudoGhost (talk) 21:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the image needs to be deleted. It gives figures for 'Hispanics', which as has been pointed out before, isn't a 'racial' category. The link to the source seems to be dead too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Delete The concept of "race" differs so much between different countries that any comparison of statistics becomes meaningless. In addition the classification and reporting of crimes varies considerably. It is true that the US and UK have moderately similar classifications of both race and crime, but even there the differences are large enough that we cannot make meaningful comparisons. If we are to have articles on Race and Crime then they have to be individual for countries. I am ignoring the obvious fact that this whole area is an ideological battleground. Dingo1729 (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
• Keep: clearly a notable topic. Does the current article have problems? Yes, but nothing that requires nuking and starting over. Frankly, the idea that this topic doesn't merit an article because it's "wrong" is ridiculous. We have lots of articles on things that are "wrong" but still notable (Phrenology, anybody?). Reliable, peer reviewed sources exist, and a high quality article is prevented not because the topic isn't notable, but because people hold strong opinions on the subject and will try to inject their opinions into the article. Buddy431 (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Excellent point. Just because something is wrong or objectionable doesn't make it not notable.--RaptorHunter (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Merge with Racial Profiling. I have to say that both sides of this argument are correct that there needs to be an encyclopedic acknowledgement of the issues on this page and it absolutely breeches WP:NPOV in a way that cannot be fixed to have this article on the current topic due to WP:UNDUE.Clearly there are correlations between race and crime but there is a context of history and science that needs to be takne into account,

• Laws have criminalised people on the basis of race: segregation or apartheid.
• Anti-slavery laws obviously had a greater effect on people based on race than speeding laws.

The current article discusses the precursor to racial profiliing and it needs to be given the context of time and regarded as the history of science and modern thinking. While clearly racial profiling is prejudicial as it ignores overlapping factors such as poverty which leads to persecution this overlap can lead to statistical correlations. To find a criminal from a witness statement has to include categorising people, you cannot simply give the description of "a mugger" and expect to find the person.

The current page should be at most a disambiguation but currently the content only covers one aspect of race and crime.

Clearly, the subarticles should be AfDed (I may have missed some) for the same reasons:Race_and_crime_in_the_United_Kingdom, Indigenous_Australians_and_crime, Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States and other articles in Category:Race and crime should be checked.

This is very different from Race and Intelligence which is impossible to give a context unless you put it in an article labelled Racist fallacies and I only realised existed via the link from the article.Tetron76 (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly the two articles are largely maintained by the same editors...

·Maunus·ƛ· 21:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

That is not surprising and why the NPOV needs to be enforced.Tetron76 (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to make it clearer my vote is not for compromise and I would pick delete as a second choice.Tetron76 (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep So long as the information is correct and the RSs are truly reliable sources, this is how Wikipedia helps readers with their research. Greg L (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

but it isn't and they aren't....·Maunus·ƛ· 21:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

We do agree on something!--RaptorHunter (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. The relationships between race and crime have been described in many RS, some of which are used in this article. There is nothing like WP:SYNTH, WP:FRINGE, or WP:COATRACK. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

If you know of reliable sources regarding the subject that haven't been cited in the article, perhaps you should add them, rather than just asserting that they exist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you really asserting that reliable sources do not exist? Have you bothered to click on the GBook link at the top? Location (talk) 03:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

No he's asserting that right now the best reason to delet is the fact that the article is a POV mess and that if you actually added some better sources to the article to make it less biased your keep votes would make more sense.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it would make more sense for you to clarify what POV you think is being pushed, so that we don't have to guess at what you think needs to be addressed. Location (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The bibliography of Race and crime in the United States has a good sampling of the existing sources on this topic. That article looks better sourced than this one. Some of its sources are US-centric, but plenty of others (like most of the sources from Gabbidon, Greene, Walsh, or Wright) could and likely should be cited in this article also.Boothello (talk) 03:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I have realised that the phrase crime rate is not defined in wikipedia and Crime rates takes you to Crime statistics which is different from the use in this article. How can you expect the article to be taken in a balanced way when you haven't distinguished between total crime and crime rates.Tetron76 (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. I don't see this article being over the brink to require deletion. There may be some POV problems though. I just added what seems a good book on it (based on the passage I read there on r/K theory). The comment "I think this is a similar issue to the recent Jews and money Afd" is symptomatic of this being just another thinly veiled attempt to exclude from Wikipedia articles on topics that some editors think should not even be mentioned because they contravene their POV or sensitivities by their very existence. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment The book added by Tijfo098 discusses r/K theory but points to 3 criticisms. It concludes with the statement (P 44), "Finally there have been concerns that Rushton's research returns to the days of Lombrosoism and the eugenics movement which, as Rafter has recently noted describing the biocriminology in Nazi Germany, was 'criminology's darkest hour.'" The summary on the section on various biologically-based theories states that "they all suffer from a variety of shortcomings; some have more glaring weaknesses than others." Mathsci (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Your point? The current wiki article debunks r/K theory as well [26]. "Race and crime" is a topic in almost every Criminology textbook I've looked in, even undergraduate ones [27], never mind monographs on the topic. I don't see policy-based justifications to delete this article. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec)To add to Mathsci's comment, from the article on r/K theory (which is a theory developed for non-human organisms):

• "Rushton's work has been roundly criticized and mostly rejected by anthropologists and biologists"
• "(Rushton's book) also has a wide following among White Nationalists"
• "not only is r/K selection theory considered to be virtually useless when applied to human life history evolution, but Rushton himself does not apply the theory correctly, and displays a lack of understanding of evolutionary theory in general."
• "the sources for the biological data gathered in support of Rushton's hypothesis were misrepresented and that much of his social science data was collected by dubious means."

How did you miss these aspects in your reading of r/K theory article?

The book added by Tijfo098 states:

• That r/K theory as applied to humans is "One of the more controversial biosocial theories related to race related to race in general and crime in particular"
• It states that "Implicit in such (biological/racial) theories (of crime) has been the notion of white supremacy"
• The whole section on the relevant topic is in fact a criticism of biologically based theories.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

What exactly did I miss and where? This article is not about r/K theory, that is only a subtopic, and it is discussed in reliable sources in relation to "race and crime". I used r/K theory as a sampling point to see if the this article is tremendously POV (as claimed by deletionists) or not. I concluded that it isn't. The r/K theory article has been recently [28] edited by Maunus, whose POV is well-known, and who added some WP:PRIMARY sources of criticism, so excuse me for preferring a textbook to a Wikipedia article for comparison purposes. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

And both you, Mr. Marek and Mathsci get the prize for selective quotations. The chapter in Gabbidon concludes (p. 44) with "In sum, many of the biologically oriented theories reviewed either directly of indirectly point to some race and crime linkages. Nevertheless, for over a century, opponents of such approaches have countered with alternative sociological perspectives; some are reviewed in the next chapter." Tijfo098 (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Uh... what's the point of your quotation? It says that these biological theories have posited a linkage between race and crime - of course they have! So has the Aryan Nation. That doesn't mean that a link actually exists and neither does the text says it does. Then, in the second sentence it says that those who disagree with these theories have proposed alternative theories. Nowhere does the text lend support to these biological theories and, as pointed out above it mentions the connection between them and white supremacist ideology. So how is anything being quoted selectively? Anything else you'd like me to read for you?Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• About 60% of the article seems to be based on Lynn and Rushton, neither of whom are experts in criminology and both of whom espouse racialist theories. The sociological explanations get two throwaway sentences in the article, whereas textbooks on criminology devote large amounts of space to that topic. No undergraduate textbooks look remotely like this article. Race and crime has been disccused in connection with many non-English speaking countries, e.g. Sweden, but these receive no mention, Mathsci (talk) 06:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Obviously 60% of the article is not based on Rushton and Lynn. Although their share have increased after mass deletions of other material such as crime rates non-English countries. Most of the sociological theories are in regard to US crime only with much less discussions of worldwide differences. I suggest that Mathsci contributes to article is he knows there is material missing. Anyhow, missing material is not a reason for deletion. Furthermore, I suggest reconsidering that the opponents of biological theories really occupy the high moral ground. If there are biological differences, then denying this is going to harm those with low biological ability the most. They have increasing problems functioning in the increasingly complex world of today, causing unemployment, crime, and so on. They need help which is not possible so long as the problem is denied to exist.Miradre (talk) 07:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The statement about sociological causes is incorrect, since criminologists write about this in all countries. My own view is that a country-by-country set of articles is fine. Isn't there a significant literature about Sweden? Mathsci (talk) 07:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

If you look in most US textbooks the sociological explanations are only about the US. If you know of any significant literature that is lacking, then please add it, to this article or a new. Anyhow, lacking material is not a reason for deletion. Neither is Wikipedia:I just don't like it . All morally indignant condemnations should consider that the groups with the most crime who also suffers the most from it. Trying to conceal or deny harms these groups the most.Miradre (talk) 10:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

How considerate of you to work to protect the weaker groups in society, by showing how much they really need protection. I must have misjudged you completely.·Maunus·ƛ· 10:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You likely have. If you had read my arguments in the AE case you would have found the same argument there. Denying biological realities will help the disadvantaged group the least. Although condemning such theories may benefit those doing so by making them feel morally superior and good.Miradre (talk) 11:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

"Denying biological realities will help the disadvantaged group the least." As far as I am aware, that is not the majority view in WP:RS. Mathsci (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

This is more or less the same argument as the one made by 19th century racists like Thomas Carlyle, who argued that blacks were "biologically disadvantaged" and so freeing them would only harm them. So you see, keeping them in slavery was for their own good. Just like running around pretending, and announcing to everyone, that blacks are "naturally" more prone to crime, despite there really being no evidence for this contention that can stand up to any kind of statistical or skeptical inquiry (as evidenced by sourced already provided), is also "for their own good". Disgusting (I mean just the hypocrisy, nm the racism itself).Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Correct. It is thinking that goes back trough Juan Gines Sepulveda to Aristotle and has been used to justify slavery and social inequality since classical times. Even when couched in paternalist verbiage it still amounts to simple racism.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. I could just as well point out the massacres of Communism as evidence for what those who denies biological realities have done. Denying biological realities is not going the help the most disadvantaged groups. We have done that. Crime rates and unemployment have just increased for this group. Affirmative action has caused large scale failures for those in programs they cannot handle. Maybe those denying biological realities should take some responsibilities for what their policies has caused.Miradre (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Crime rates and unemployment have just increased for this group - Bullshit. Sources? Crime rates for crimes that are not subject to prosecutor's discretion - like homicide rates - have fallen for "this group" dramatically since the 1960's. Unemployment fluctuates with the general economy but until this last recession, the unemployment rate for blacks (I guess this would be the "this group") had been steadily declining, from around 15% at beginning of the 90's (and much higher before) to about 8% by 2007 and converging to that of whites. Likewise the wage gap between blacks and whites - while still there - has gotten smaller since the 1960's, probably in part due to Affirmative Action.

So let's see, after the removal of the most racist laws and institutions thanks to the Civil Rights movement, economic conditions for "these groups" began to improve - contra that whole IQ, race and income nonsense - and at the same time, crime rates of actual crimes (not incarceration rates for petty offenses) fell along with increases in income - contra the whole race and crime crap.

But no, what's important is to insist that "these groups" are inferior, and can't help commit crimes etc. because not blaming them for this shit "only hurts them". Bullshit, racist nonsense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

No sources of course. Here is one: [29]Miradre (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You're switching subjects again. Unemployment rate for blacks in 1975 was almost 15%. In 2007 it was 8%. Overall, from 1972 to 2010 (both recession years), unemployment rate for blacks has been falling by about .1 of a percent per year. Source: http://data.bls.gov/. I don't think you actually understand the Borjas et. al paper (nm about Borjas himself, or the fact that this is a cherry picked paper) that you're linking to. I note you didn't even bother to address your claims about crime rates "increasing" - hell, the graph proving that wrong is in the Race and crime in the United States article itself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Write a paper if you disagree with Borjas. Crime rates was incorrect. I should have stated incarceration rates as in the Borjas paper.Miradre (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Other people already have (and maybe I am writing one). Anyway you said "unemployment rates" - I answered with unemployment rates. You changed the goal post and linked to the Borjas paper which does not use unemployment rates but rather weeks worked (which is essentially playing shenanigans with the data - cuz they know unemployment rates won't support their "story" - but nm that). And obviously incarceration rates don't reflect crime rates but other factors. So we have...

"Crime rates ... (has) just increased for this group." - bullshit premise, shown to be false.

"... unemployment (has) just increased for this group." - bullshit premise, shown to be false.

"Affirmative action has caused large scale failures for those in programs they cannot handle." - another false premise

"Maybe those denying biological realities should take some responsibilities for what their policies has caused." - bullshit conclusion based on bullshit premises, with obviously racist overtones.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You have answered with nothing sourced. Give a specific link. I will also of course note that an official unemployment rate for a group is misleading when more than 10% is stored away in prison. In large parts thanks to factors such as drooping out of a school system not accepting biological realities.Miradre (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Double Sigh. Biological reality? Really? How funny that "biological reality" according to your favorite scholars happens to align perfectly with a colonial social order. The failures of communism were due to their not recognizing innate racial disparities, not to its being totalitarian an authoritarian ? Does that mean that an authoritarian totalitarian rule that acknowledges innate racial hierarchies would be the best solution? Oops, I think we tried that too.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I see no problem taking up the massacres of communism if you take up slavery and colonialism. Whoever said, except you as a straw man, that acceptance of biological realities leads to an authoritarian totalitarian rule? According to that logic IQ tests and school grades should be prohibited since they imply that intelligence differ between people and almost all accept that this is in part heritable... But, wait we do not have a dictatorship despite that we accept that people differ in intelligence! Why should it be different if we accept that groups differ? Again, maybe those denying biological realities should take some responsibility for failures of their policies especially for the disadvantaged groups. Rising crime, unemployment, drugs... Miradre (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I did not say that accepting biological reality/(used here in your sense as a euphemism for racist ideology) leads to authoritarian regimes, I am saying that it is ridiculous to blame the horrors of communism on their lack of accepting "biological reality" when in fact the problem obviously their being a totalitarian regime and to show that the problem was totalitarianism and not egalitarianism I hinted towards a well known example of a totalitarian regime that did recognize "biological reality" and produced equal horrors. Your instinctive lash at communism is simply a red herring designed to divert attention from the real fact namely that your acknowledgment of "biological reality" was never meant to produce any kind of social improvement for the inherently week groups and that the people who argue for making this realization never ever work to produce any such kind of social change except through policy reccomendations of population control (eugenics or anti-immigration). It is the epitome of hypocrisy to pay lipservice to the possible beneficial consequences of discovering the "real" cause of social equality like you and the Lynns and Rushtons of the world when the actual agenda is visibly not beneficial to those groups at all, but rather to protect their own favored group from the harmful effects of cohabiting with the "weaker groups".·Maunus·ƛ· 15:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Racist ideology? I could with equal justification or equal wrongness call the denial of biological differences for Communism. The horrors of Communism arose in large part from denial of biological realities. A superior "New Man" should be shaped by new superior environment and everything standing in the way of this good and just goal could be sacrificed even if this meant total destruction of the old environment and society and massacres. Did not work. Similarly, the policy of denying biological group differences has been destructive and most for the most disadvantaged groups. Rising crime, unemployment, drugs... Denying reality is in the long run harmful for all although you can certainly always find some people who gain from it short-term. Including those who like to feel morally superior.Miradre (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Except for the fact that denying the existence of a racial hierarchy is not the definition of "communism" (for example because it is possile to have other kinds of social hierarchies other than racial ones although that may seem strange to you), whereas affirming the existence of such a racial hierarchy is in fact the definition of "racist ideology".·Maunus·ƛ· 16:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

A "hierarchy " for average group IQ does not imply that groups differ in "value" anymore than different IQs for people imply that they have different "value". Yes, communism as an ideology rejected any biological differences and saw man as a "tabula rasa". A new superior man, formed by a superior environment, should be created. It is similar with current policy of denying biological realities. The results has in both cases been gigantic failures. Another similarity is that the architects and proponents deny seeing the failures and destruction their policies have created.Miradre (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

If hierarchy does not imply differences in value then how do you define hierarchy? Communism didn't reject biological hierarchy by the way, their policy of eugenics was similar to the ones of other countries at the time, except they didn't argue for racial biological differences as the basis of biological difference. Also as I have stated now several times, denying the existence of race does not equal communism because it is possible to deny the biological basis of race and still not be egalitarian - oppositely there is no way that arguing that different groups have different IQs is not the same as establishing a racist hierarchy based on differential values. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You are arguing that that because individuals differ in IQ scores they have different "value"? If not, why would it be different for groups? You still not replied regarding the failures of the race denial policies: unemployment, crime, drugs... Maybe it is time to reconsider? Miradre (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Is an IQ score not a value? (In fact for Rushton, Lynn and Gotfredsson IQ is clearly used as a proxy for "value to society" as their rididucloues arguments about IQ as predictive of success shows). Regarding your now 4 times repeated trio of "unemployment, crime, drugs" I cannot asnwer your loaded question, without starting a new argument about its faulty premises.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Obviously people do not have less human rights because they differ on IQ or many other factors. The same applies to groups. It is only in your straw man version that this is necessary.Miradre (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I have not mentioned rights. I don't know of any definition of racism that requires a belief in race as the basis for differential human rights. Racism is simply ranking humans hierarchically according to racial group membership - it doesn't require any particular viewpoint on what that ranking implies politically. So your accusing me of erecting strawmen is itself ... a strawman. I shall stop now but I must say that this exchange has been highly enlightening.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting definition. So if someone found that different groups differed on, say, long-distance running ability, then this would be racism? Miradre (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if that someone was silly enough to propose that "long distance runnign ability", "penis length", "rhytmmic ability" or whatever criteria he decided to rank was an inherent an essential feature of a racial group rather than being caused by the specific bio-geographical ancestry which does of course vary both within and between different ethno-geographical groups. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

If someone said genetic IQ varied in such a way it would also be OK? Miradre (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "genetic IQ". AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Unlike for the racial differences, there is no disagreement that IQ for individuals is partly caused by genetic factors.Miradre (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

That depends on whether the observer decided to equate the difference in long-distance running ability (a physical trait) with a propensity for crime. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that it does not matter if communist believe in racial differences or not. It does not matter what Hitler believes. It does not matter how many people suffered or died because of perceived racial differences. The only question here is if racial differences are supported by Scientific Fact. Keep your philosophical discussions out of it.--RaptorHunter (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed.Miradre (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• keep per Hodja Nasreddin; a legitimate topic. There are multiple sources available for the topic, some already mentioned in the article. No reason to delete, just because some statements may be POVed (or rather, might not reflect the views of some users advocating deletion). Hence, keep and develop further. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Even though it is possible that an acceptable article might be written on this subject, and the subject is clearly notable in itself, it is regrettably clear that it will not be fixed. Wikipedia is not currently capable of dealing with this sort of subject. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, that was new argument.Miradre (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

That is obvious enough.--RaptorHunter (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment This discussion has been running for over a week now. I see no clear consensus for either keeping or deleting. Perhaps it's time to close this out, especially since I'm starting to see some circular arguments here and there. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
• Delete This (and the associated Race and crime in the United States are a hodge podge of fringe theories usually the pet theories of one or two pov pushing editors and have no real place in an encyclopedia. --rgpk (comment) 20:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
• Delete, inherently POV and OR. Stifle (talk) 08:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.