Talk:Criminal stereotype of African Americans/Archive 1

Archive 1

"Representation" vs. "ratio"

With regard to edits like this, I cannot make out what the rationale is for changing this. "Ratio" is an ambiguous term that can refer to comparative quantities or to the proportion of a quantity with respect to a whole. It is also not the best style. There seems to be some objection being raised here, but I cannot make it out. If you want to make this change, please provide a detailed explanation of your reasons here. Thanks. — Gavia immer (talk) 07:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Ratio means proportion, and

U.S. incarceration rates by race, June 30, 2006:

Whites: 409 per 100,000

Latinos: 1,038 per 100,000

Blacks: 2,468 per 100,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States#Racial_demographics_of_the_US

I enjoy eggs (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

POV tag and the explanation

What POV issues remain? Regarding the explanation bit, the source is (page 277):

Welch, Kelly (August 2007). "Black Criminal Stereotypes and Racial Profiling". Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 23 (3): 276–288. doi:10.1177/1043986207306870.

The relevant bit is:

"It is likely that the foremost contributor to the formation of the public's association between Blacks and criminality is the sheer number of Blacks represented in crime statistics and the criminal justice system. We would expect that if Blacks were disproportionately involved in criminal activity and consequently overrepresented as convicted criminals by the criminal justice system, they would be perceived as being more involved in crime and criminal justice measures than are others."

The sentence was originally sourced (without in-text), then deleted, then re-added without the source. I then added the source with in-text attribution (in case there are POV problems), and deleted the image. My edit was reverted (with summary "readd tag") and the reverter, Maunus, doesn't seem to have looked at my edit too carefully, because his second edit then removed the image and claimed that the sentence was unsourced. Christopher Connor (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

That is not a sufficiently reliable source for such a stroing claim. It is firsly a speculation "one might suspect" gives away that this is a personal speculation not backed by empirical research. There are also logical inconsistencies with it for example the stereotype is historically very old and probably predates the current criminal statistics. In short the claim is a WP:REDFLAG issue and would require a much better source to suggest that this is indeed the most widely believed explanation. Secondly the fact that the article doesn't discuss the historical development of the stereotype or how it is implicated in issues such as racial profiling, the general history of racial disparities in the American criminal justice system, the worldwide context of the stereotype (not all countries have it - e.g. in India Lower caste Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims are stereotyped as more criminal than others not Blacks), it also doesn't discuss the possible causal explanations apart from the speculation by Welch. All of this indicates persisting fundamental POV problems. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Also it turns out the source doesn't support the claim at all. Welch actually concludes: "The current recognizability of the image of a young Black criminal has been the result of various representations of crime. Contributions to this relationship that many identify between African Americans and criminality include actual involvement in crime, especially crack cocaine violations and violent offenses. Blacks do account for a disproportionate amount of crime arrests and are disproportionately convicted and incarcerated. But public estimates of Black criminality surpass the reality. The media perpetuate ideas linking race with criminality, which have also been reinforced by political agendas. The temporary efficacy of using a racial hoax to mislead law enforcement and the public has capitalized on and strengthened views about race and crime. All of these phenomena have served to solidify the stereotype of the young Black man as a criminal threat among the public in contemporary American society, which then fuels the practice of racial profiling by criminal justice officials. The prevalent typification of Blacks as criminals seems to justify law enforcement tactics that exploit race in criminal investigations. Only when criminal justice personnel recognize that the sources of these stereotypes are flawed or based on discriminatory practices themselves will the rationale for maintaining the unofficial policy and practice of racial profiling of criminals be negated. When the association between race and criminality ceases to be compelling, it will be apparent that racial profiling serves no useful purpose." (my emphases)·Maunus·ƛ· 02:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how that piece isn't a reliable source. According to this page, the journal is "guest-edited by an expert in the topic being studied and contains contributions from leading researchers and scholars. In this journal, you'll receive authoritative, balanced examinations on a variety of critical issues in criminal justice today, written and assembled by the most experienced and knowledgeable scholars." Kelly Welch herself is an assistant professor at Villanova University and holds an Ph.D in criminology from Florida State University [1]. I can't see how the sentence is a red flag issue: if one group commits more crime than another group, it wouldn't be remarkable for there to be an association between that group and crime, a point Welch makes. I don't see the text you produced as contradicting the earlier text, merely elaborating on it; indeed, she reiterates the earlier point, while saying there are other reasons. Christopher Connor (talk) 05:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, what are the outstanding POV issues? Christopher Connor (talk) 05:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It surely is a reliable source, but the source was misrepresented to support the opposite pov of the one she expressed! That is a POV problem and it runs through the entire article. The article does n ot adequately explain the history or the atucality of the stereotype, nor does it adequately summarise the conclusions of its own sources.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Your characterisation of what was in this article is not quite accurate given that it closely followed the wording of the Welch article. If anything, the Welch article seems to contradict itself by saying actual crime contributes but that the sources of the stereotype are flawed. In any case, how shall we summarise that article? As for POV problems, you'll have to give specific examples rather than general assertions. The lack of history is not in itself a POV problem. Christopher Connor (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes it cherry picked a quote that happened to give the opposite impression of her general conclusion. I have given sufficient examples.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand. A lack of information is not in itself a POV problem. At the very least, you will have to give relevant sources that contain what you think should be in the article. There really was no cherry picking involved. I hadn't read the whole article when writing that sentence. Christopher Connor (talk) 12:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

That is what cherry picking means.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

In that case, you need to look up the definition of cherry picking. Talking to you is becoming more and more pointless so unless you provide sources with information of what's missing in the article or give specific examples of POV in the article, I'll be removing the tag in due course. Christopher Connor (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Why would you include a quote from an article you havent actually read? If you remove the POV tag without fixing the problems I will of course have to reinsert it. I have stated my case, that you don't get it is really not my problem.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Christopher Connor. Maunus, why did you delete the material on the stereotype having some factual cause? Miradre (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, for this to be a reasonable article, it needs to have a LOT more research and scholarship done on it, and really it might be more properly merged with an article on racism. What about redlining in housing after World War II? What about early developments in the US colonies regarding class and color in the eyes of the law? There are a series of well-researched essays (here) that might help you in researching. -- Avanu (talk) 14:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Cesare Lombroso

The work of this Italian criminologist is misrepresented, as he spent more time on criminal anthropometry, believing individual characteristics of skull, etc. were indicative of criminality, not race. He was more influential in Europe than the US, where sociological appraisals of criminality were more powerful; and a contemporary English researcher showed his work was statistically invalid. This much is in the Wikipedia article on him, suggesting how far off this current article is.Parkwells (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I added the lombroso material to show that there is a long history of scientific racism in criminology, going back to Lombroso often referred to as its founder.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I added more to show what he was writing about - Sicilians.Parkwells (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Cause

The article flatly contradicts the notion that the cause of the stereotype is the statistical overrepresentation of blacks in the American penal system. Firstly the stereotype exists outside of the US, secondly the article states that the stereotype goes back to slavery. It would require a very good secondary source to state that the cause is any one particular thing - as an unsourced statement it cannot even be included.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No it doesn't say anything about "the stereotype goes back to slavery.", and it existing out of the US just drives the point home. There is another discussion about this higher in the talk page that has a source. I enjoy eggs (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

You will have t be a lot more specific than that. And as I said not just any source will do this is clearly a red flag issue that requires an extraordinarily good source that explicitly says that this is the cause of the stereotype.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Though the stereotype exists outside the US, it is also true that blacks are overrpresented in the penal systems of virtually every state on earth in which they are a significant minority population. It is almost certainly true that the former at least contributes to the latter. It is certainly a more likely explanation than an appeal to the content of political speeches by Republicans that make no overt mention of race, yet we allow that causal argument to stand on the basis of an activist source. 72.201.98.201 (talk) 23:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge from Black brute

The articles are essentially about one and the same stereotype, one title being "poetic", the other one being formal. The contents both overlap and complementary, with BB being more focussed on history, while CBMS is more about modern times. Article merge will help to grasp the history of the concept. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Weak oppose & suggest close - It looks to me like this would give undue weight to the relatively large amount of material there. Summary Style looks to me like a better approach here. It's been 5+ months, and mine is the only response to the suggestion. I suggest that the discussion be closed and the merge tags be removed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Verifiability and Reliable Sources

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criminal_black_man_stereotype&diff=430903506&oldid=430900189

The addition of the chart and this sentence "The main explanation for the presence of the stereotype in the United States is the hugely disproportionate number of black people in the criminal justice system" are being reverted because they are very strong claims with only 1 source. Besides there being many sources that dispute this, simple logic tells us that this wouldn't be the root explanation for such a stereotype. This sentence is putting the effect as the cause. Please check additional sources before re-adding this material. -- Avanu (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Late to the table, I know. The stereotype is that people of color have a higher proclivity to criminal behavior. Said criminal tendencies by this particular group of people is well-documented and there is a wealth of historical collocation by governmental regulatory and administrative agencies to substantiate these numbers. But that's not the end of the story, of course. These statistics represent actual people of color, who have systematically and disproportionate to other segments of the population, ACTUALLY behaved unlawfully within the populace over at least as many years as records can show us. Their actions and behavior placed them into a statistical group which can be calculated. Simple logic and deductive reasoning will certainly dictate then, that society's perception of this particular group of people can be shaped not necessarily by these numbers, but because the numbers show a clear and predictable pattern of behavior by this group of people. We can see how the behaviors and tendencies of one group might affect public perceptions. The fact that black people are widely over-represented at all levels in the criminal justice system, based on all available information, lends itself quite clearly to the stereotype that they commit an inordinate amount of crime. Against other people. Who form opinions based upon their experiences. Which is how stereotypes are created. Does that make more sense? 206.53.75.234 (talk) 17:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Sources, etc.

It seems to me that this article has way too many unsourced statements. I'm reading and all I see is "historians have noted," and "research has revealed," and "according to numerous sources," and "according to research," and "some academic sources state," yadda yadda. So maybe let's back it up. 206.53.75.234 (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Added by MintyFresh;

This part is in obvious error. At the time of slavery, blacks were about 9% at most of the population in the South.

"... of the white minority trying to dominate African Americans."

The whites were NOT the minority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.15.45 (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that whoever wrote this article didn't have sources for several statements they wrote. The ones stated above were the most obvious, "historians have noted" that statement is very vague and has no true meaning. Johnbigley210 (talk) 15:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review

Josetanb did a great job with the wiki page and added informative information into the different sections throughout the wiki article. Your consequences section is great and provides great detail with dates and statistics to back up the evidence you have presented. I would say something to keep in mind is maybe try to explore other countries where Blacks face the same level of discrimination as the United States if not more to help put things into a wider perspective. Another great source to get some great statistics and content about the mass incarceration and criminal justice system in regards to black individuals is from the movie 13th that is on Netflix. If you are struggling finding articles, that documentary is very factual and a reliable source to quote from. Overall, I think you are doing a great job so far on your wiki page and have contributed quite a bit2601:400:C200:F135:54BE:6118:9BAC:B2ED (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review

josetan added adequate information that was well informed and properly cited — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijacobson (talk • contribs) 19:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

If anyone cares to source crime statistics..

Look no further than the FBI Crime Statistics https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/crimestats/

Half of all murders in the United States are committed by black American males. This cross section of the American populace only accounts for around 7% of the total population of the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:345:4201:46E7:249F:2E7F:88CD:F976 (talk) 02:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

This is actually the perfect example of a criminal stereotype. The first thing somebody wants to do to stereotype African Americans is to use this statement. Leave this dog whistle "Blacks are the most dangerous group of people that ever existed." propaganda out of this article. In Correct (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

It also violates WP:Original research because the source doesn't draw any conclusions about what the statistics mean, so we can't infer that these stats are the reason the stereotype exists. Also, FYI African Americans make up almost 13% of the US population, not 7%. —PermStrump(talk) 00:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

The 7% is referencing the cross section, or demographic, specifically of black males - not the entire population. So 7% is an accurate statement. 71.201.146.58 (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Criminal stereotype of African Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110516032759/http://www.northwestern.edu/ipr/publications/papers/2003/pagerquillianajs.pdf to http://www.northwestern.edu/ipr/publications/papers/2003/pagerquillianajs.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Globalize

The article content is focused on the U.S., though the U.K. is mentioned. It seems to me that this topic might have wider application, so I've put a {{globalize}} hatnote in the article. I've done a bit of googling and found [2] and [3] [4] (a weak start, but I didn't spend much time on this). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

'How the hell do you "globalize" an article about the "Criminal Stereotype of African Americans"? 2604:2D80:4032:818E:18D4:9635:6986:E074 (talk) 08:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Reference citations may not be statistically significant

The problem I see here is that the research cited to in order to draw the conclusion that there is a racial disparity lacks to cite what the p-value was. Since the p-value indicates whether or not the research is generally accepted as statistically significant, it finds that the reference citations are dubious if not intellectually dishonest until we have that information. For that reason I recommend removal of all references to reference citations until and unless a p-value is cited for the work in question. 66.90.153.184 (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

"Consequences in other countries"

I renamed this section to "Situation in other countries" as "consequence" implies a result. Maybe racism was imported to Canada and Ecuador by imitating the US, but you haven't made it clear that the sources say that.

Really, this information should be moved to articles about stereotypes of each country's African diaspora. "African American" is not a synonym for black people, and this enshrines a US-centric bias in which all actions are believed to revolve around that country. An article about sexism in country X would not have a section about sexism in country Y as if all roads lead back to country X. Wallachia Wallonia (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed Topic

I am considering working on this topic for my Wikipedia assignment. I want to add two sections, one on the police killings of Black women, and another on the school to prison piepline. I've included a link to my user page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AHall08AHall08 (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism

If you look at the last 10 edits, three of them were vandalism. Shouldn't we move this article one notch up the protection ladder? Trimton (talk) 02:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Josetan. Peer reviewers: Ijacobson, Jantzenh.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2018 and 14 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alasia shalyn.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 April 2019 and 14 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emilylam37, Dltn115, Callmestrawberry.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 April 2020 and 20 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AndrewLung.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2020 and 11 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jayla.George.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 September 2021 and 3 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kluci10.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Contemporary Black Popular Culture

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2022 and 13 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Arequeno11 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by CJS77 (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

MAOA gene

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A sentence describing the MAOA gene was recently deleted due to violating WP:SYNTH. I agree that the way it was written was a violation, but the information could be cited to a single source:

Stetler, D. A., Davis, C., Leavitt, K., Schriger, I., Benson, K., Bhakta, S., ... & Bortolato, M. (2014). Association of low-activity MAOA allelic variants with violent crime in incarcerated offenders. Journal of psychiatric research, 58, 69-75.[5]

Wiki Crazyman (talk) 04:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

You have quite simply misread the study. The text you sought to add appeared to crudely suggest that people of African descent are more genetically predisposed toward violence than people of European descent. If that were something the scientists in question wished to say they would say it. Pretending that they did is a gross misrepresentation of the source. In fact what they are saying is that they found L-MAOA alleles to be predictive of violent behavior in European-descent individuals but not in those of African descent. They also acknowledge a ton of limitations to their single, WP:PRIMARY study (as good scientists typically do), which is why we typically do not give much weight to such publications, no matter what they say. Generalrelative (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The study did in fact say (in addition to the fact that the MAOA alleles are predictive of violent behavior in Caucasians), that the alleles are more common in African Americans. From the "results" section:

In substantial agreement with previous data on the MAOA allelic distribution in the general population (Sabol et al. 1998), we found a trend (P=0.08) toward a significantly higher frequency of African-American carriers of low-activity MAOA variants, as compared with their Caucasian counterparts (Fig. 1A).

Wikipedia is not censored.

Wiki Crazyman (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

No it is not. And competence is required. That includes the competence to read and comprehend a study in its entirety, which –– had you done so in this case –– would have made clear to you that the authors do not advocate making any concrete inferences about African-Americans from the bare fact you cite above. Indeed, in the same paragraph you quote from, the authors note: "Conversely, only a marginally significant difference (P=0.08) was found in the proportion of low-activity MAOA alleles in African-Americans violent and non-violent convicts". This means that, as the Abstract summarizes, the association between the L-MAOA alleles and violent behavior was "replicated in the group of Caucasian violent offenders (P<0.01), but reached only a marginal trend (P=0.08) in their African American counterparts." You, however, have entirely ignored all of this to present a factoid out of context with the apparent intention of persuading the reader that the stereotypes presented in the WP article have some validity. This kind of WP:TENDENTIOUS / WP:OR is disruptive in the extreme and can very quickly get you banned from editing a DS topic such as this. Generalrelative (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

You are correct that Wikipedia is not censored. Judging from your previous edits, I find it hard to believe that you are editing this article in good faith. In addition, accusing me of not reading the article in its entirety may constitute a personal attack. You correctly pointed out that the article states “Conversely, only a marginally significant difference (P=0.08) was found in the proportion of low-activity MAOA alleles in African-Americans violent and non-violent convicts.” However, this statement is not comparing the distribution of alleles between African American and Caucasian convicts (which has already been shown), but rather, the distribution of alleles between violent and non-violent convicts within the African American group.

Attempting to extrapolate inferences from a study in the manner that you have is original research. I am attempting to add a single sentence which is important to the reader to understand this issue. The sentence is a simple statement of fact which is fully sourced. Wiki Crazyman (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

At this point we are quite obviously talking past one another. I've posted a notice at WP:FT/N, so hopefully others will come along to weigh in. Generalrelative (talk) 02:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Adding an out-of-context quote from the article is not appropriate and clearly intended to lead the reader to a conclusion not stated in the research article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

We could add context from the article if necessary. The statement from the article isn't intended to lead the reader to any conclusion. I think it's necessary to add balance to the WP article. Wiki Crazyman (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that we cannot use a WP:PRIMARY source for such a WP:FRINGE claim, unless we also have good secondary sources talking about it. The fact that everybody else who read the article do not agree with your interpretation of it is another reason to reject it. Either one of those two reasons would be enough.

And you have not given a valid reason for inclusion, which would also be enough to reject it. "Wikipedia is not censored" is an all-round reason that could also justify adding "POOP SHIT FUCK!!!1! PENIS!" to the article, and therefore thoroughly useless. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Everyone is giving a different reason for excluding this information, which leads me to believe that they are not acting in good faith. My inclusion of this primary source meets all six of the WP guidelines for use of primary sources:

   *Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.
   *Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.
   *A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.
   *Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
   *Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.
   *Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:Biographies of living persons 

I also have a secondary source:

Wade, N. (2015). A troublesome inheritance: Genes, race and human history. Penguin, pp. 53-57.

This information is not fringe at all. The Journal of Psychiatric Research is a reputable, peer-reviewed scholarly journal, and this is the gold standard for WP:RS. The reason for inclusion is that it adds balance to the article. People here are not acting in good faith, but rather a POV attempt to remove things that make them uncomfortable. Wiki Crazyman (talk) 07:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Everyone is giving a different reason because there are so many reasons for excluding it. You should really begin to entertain the possibility that you may be wrong, although that seems unimaginable to you.

• but only with care You did not use it with care.
• requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation So, your actual source for the interpretation you used is Nicholas Wade?
  1. How was anybody to guess that if you quote only the primary source?
  2. The link you gave is not to the secondary source but to a commercial website that sells the secondary source. We cannot link that in the article.
  3. He is not a good source. He has no competence for science, although he calls himself a science writer. Some random book by a random person is not a useable source for scientific subjects.
• only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source Other users, checking the source, could not verify what you wrote.

I will stop here, you get the drift. You made a cornucopia of rookie mistakes to pick from. Accusing others of bad faith is, of course, not a valid argument but just one more rookie mistake. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not wrong. My attempted inclusion of this study is fully in accordance with WP guidelines. Wade graduated from Eton and Cambridge, so he is a reliable source. Obviously, I cannot link to the full text of the book since it is under copyright. However, anyone can borrow the book from archive.org to verify the contents of the book. You have provided yet more specious reasons for the exclusion of the study. Wiki Crazyman (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

We're talking about Nicholas Wade now?? I'll just leave these references here in case anyone who's unfamiliar with that name happens by: [6][7][8]. Generalrelative (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not wrong.

Not a great start...

Wade graduated from Eton and Cambridge, so he is a reliable source.

That is a specious argument. Graduating from a university does not make one a reliable source for everything under the sun. This demonstrates you do not have a grasp on our reliable sources criteria. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Wade has a degree in natural sciences, the topic he is writing about, from Cambridge. That makes him a reliable source. Positive reviews of the book: [9][10] Wiki Crazyman (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Lol, 143 senior biologists and geneticists from around the world sign a letter repudiating Wade's misrepresentation of genetics –– an unprecedented show of unity for any scientific discipline –– but an arch-libertarian economist and Charles freaking Murray gave it positive reviews so it must be legit? This is beyond WP:TENDENTIOUS. Generalrelative (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

"Natural Sciences" is an undergraduate study at Cambridge. That's not going to qualify him as an expert on this topic. Again, you do not understand our reliable sources requirements and, as the kids say, you should take the L. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

That letter was politically, not scientifically, motivated. Other positive reviews of the book:

hidden peacock display behaviour
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
James D. Watson (co-discoverer of DNA): “A masterful overview of how changes in our respective lineages let us begin to understand how human beings have evolved from ancestral hunter-gatherer forebears into effective members of today’s advanced human societies.” Edward O. Wilson (Harvard): “Nicholas Wade combines the virtues of truth without fear and the celebration of genetic diversity as a strength of humanity, thereby creating a forum appropriate to the twenty-first century.” New Scientist “Wade provides a masterful summary of recent research.” Lionel Tiger (Anthropology, Rutgers): “Nicholas Wade has delivered an impeccable, fearless, responsible, and absorbing account….Bound to be the gold standard in the field for a very long time.” Richard Cohen (Washington Post): “[Wade] is a robust and refreshing critic of scientific political correctness.” Charles Murray: “A scientific revolution is under way—upending one of our reigning orthodoxies Steve Sailer: The Liberal Creationists,” “A Couple of Wild-Eyed Wackos: Me and the NYT,” “The Race FAQ,” “From the Steveosphere on ‘A Troublesome Inheritance’,” and “The Strange Evolution of Eugenics Ed West: “Darwin’s unexploded bomb Robert VerBruggen: “Race Is Real. What Does that Mean for Society?” Bryce Lalibert: The Trouble with Inheritance: A Review of Nicholas Wade’s Troublesome Inheritance Genetic Literacy Project: “Genes and evolution trump culture in shaping human differences Andrew Sullivan quotes from Wade’s new book on reality of race Ross Douthat: “I found the less-speculative first half of the book extremely persuasive…. Margaret Wente: “What if race is more than a social construct? Larry Arnhart: “Human Biodiversity Supports the Natural Right to Equal Liberty,” “Human Biodiversity (2): The Genetic Evolution of Capitalism and the Bourgeois Virtues?,” “Human Biodiversity (3): Nicholas Wade, Abraham Lincoln, and Racial Genetics,” “Human Biodiversity (4): The Importance of Culture in Gene-Culture Coevolution,” and “Human Biodiversity (5): Cultural Group Selection Through Migration and Assimilation,” “Human Biodiversity (6): Would the Recent Genetic Evolution of Human Beings Subvert Darwinian Natural Right?,” “Human Biodiversity (7): Rising IQ in Developing Nations” Joost Niemöller: “De IQ discussie. Nature wint.” (The IQ debate. Nature wins.) RGambler: Genetics, gender and race – how will social policy cope with recent scientific discoveries? 28 Sherman: Nicholas Wade Shows Why the System Needs Feminist Biology Ashutosh Jogalekar: Genes and Race: The Distant Footfalls of Evidence James Thompson: It’s the people, stupid’: a review of Wade’s A Troublesome Inheritance HBD Chick: Human Biodiversity, Racism, Eugenics, and Genocide Fred Reed: A Troublesome Inheritance The Politically Incorrect Australian: A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History Gregory Cochran: Phenotypes vs genetic statistics Bo Winegard: “Darwin ’s Duel with Descartes” (from the journal Evolutionary Psychology) Takuan Seiyo: “To Live and Die Under a Mentirocracy: Wading into a faked controversy” Steve Sailer: “Reconstructing Race,” “The biological construct of race in America and “Race of the Amish” Gina O'Neill-Santiago: No, Inquiring About A Possible Biological Basis for Race is not ‘Scientific Racism’ Steven Malanga: “A Biological Basis for Race? Chemiotics: A Troublesome Inheritance – I and A Troublesome Inheritance – II – Four Anthropological disasters of the past 100 years Unsilenced Science: The Warrior Gene, Back from the Grave and Christopher Irwin Smith is an Idiot Henry Harpending: At Least Erroneous in Faith Unsilenced Science: “Correcting the Critics of Nicholas Wade & MAOA Audacious Epigone: On A Troublesome Inheritance Jonathan Anomaly: Genes, Race, and the Ethics of Belief

Given that the co-discoverer of DNA has praised the book, I think it's fair to say it's a reliable source. Wiki Crazyman (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Why are you wasting all this time making arguments that no reasonable person could possibly be persuaded by? The letter signed by 143 senior biologists and geneticists was "politically motivated" but reviews from a string of white nationalists and The Politically Incorrect Australian are somehow not? Do you know what else James Watson has said about race? (As an aside, he was not the "co-discoverer of DNA", which is a common misconception; DNA was first isolated by Friedrich Miescher in 1869.)

I'm not enthused about wasting any more time on this discussion myself, but I'm concerned that you may be naïve enough to imagine that this gaggle of carnival barkers is in any way persuasive. It is not. Generalrelative (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Are you attempting to cast doubt on the reputations of James Watson and E. O. Wilson? Watson is a Nobel Prize winner. Wiki Crazyman (talk) 00:47, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh they did that to themselves. I'm just letting you know. See also E. O. Wilson#Support of J. Philippe Rushton. Generalrelative (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

You might also benefit from learning about the dreaded Nobel disease. Generalrelative (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but Wilson and Watson are speaking within their fields. Politics aside, there is no doubt that they are experts in their respective fields. In fact, they largely created the fields! Wiki Crazyman (talk) 01:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Wilson was an expert on ants, Watson on the structure of DNA. Both made their major contributions in the mid-20th century, and both eventually revealed themselves to be profoundly bigoted men. Whereas a large portion of the signatories of the anti-Wade letter are top contemporary names in human evolutionary biology, including many upon whose work Wade had attempted to base his argument.

In any case, we are now far afield from the original point of this discussion. I hope I've given you a bit of insight into where I'm coming from, but either way I think you've been given all the patience you are due here. You are entitled to engagement on the talk page, but we are not required to WP:SATISFY you. Please recognize that you are in a WP:1AM position and move on. Generalrelative (talk) 01:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I'm outnumbered, but Wikipedia is not a democracy. You are sealioning by continually raising new objections after I answer each previous objection to the material.Wiki Crazyman (talk) 02:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Since this discussion is turning toward behavior rather than content, I'll respond on your user talk page. Generalrelative (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy More relevant: Wikipedia is not a dictatorship with you as boss. You failed to convince anyone because all the reasons you gave were crap. Of course you cannot see that because if you could, you would not have used them in the first place. But you do not need to be convinced that you lost the discussion, it is enough that you lost the discussion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

You are misusing the term sealioning, just as you misuse other terms throughout this discussion. Frankly I'm done putting up with your bullshit. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

"Watson is a Nobel Prize winner." And a famous racist. Which is why his honorary titles have been revoked, and why scientific organizations have cut their ties to him. He is poisonous for their own reputations. Dimadick (talk) 14:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I did find another secondary source: Race and Crime: A Biosocial Analysis, p. 102, by Anthony Walsh. Wiki Crazyman (talk) 05:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

What we would need is someone outside the tiny walled garden of biosocial criminology proponents. A quick glance at Walsh's bio shows that he is heavily invested in the idea, and has even coauthored a book about it with Kevin Beaver. Generalrelative (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.