Talk:Criminal stereotype of African Americans

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MAOA gene[edit]

This was dead for seven months. Please don't resurrect old discussions. Start a new section if you feel you have a new source or editing suggestion. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.[1]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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: [2][3][4]. Generalrelative (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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: [5][6] Wiki Crazyman (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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.

Wiki Education assignment: African American Studies[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2024 and 24 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DevAgain24 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by DevAgain24 (talk) 04:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Criminal_stereotype_of_African_Americans&oldid=1215953675"