Talk:Race and crime in the United Kingdom

Bias

• This article focuses on crime in which Black people are over-represented, but does not deal with crime where they are under-represented. It would be useful to have statistics on that.Harrypotter (talk) 11:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• The statistics need to be put in the context of other social factors, e.g social deprivation. Then it will be easier for people to see whether the the recourse to crime has a social basis.Harrypotter (talk) 11:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I certainly agree on your second comment. I've put an expand tag on the explanations section of the article, which needs to deal with the relationship between crime, race and poverty. The article also needs to mention that black people are disproportionately likely to be victims of crime. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I believe some of your comments have now been addressed. Christopher Connor (talk) 00:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

This article is shows partiality and circular reasoning in many areas. One simple example, the Statistics sections states "Blacks are more likely to be found guilty than whites", where the data shows all races, not only whites. The data shows no information about what they are found guilty of, or whether the higher rate of conviction relates to a higher rate of misdemeanour. The article points out that ethnicity is not a factor in offence rates if you remove many other factors, but makes no attempt to explain what purpose there is to removing those factors, other than levelling out the offence rates, or how those factors can be separated from ethnicity. This is a complex, involved and controversial subject but this article mostly details opinion and perception, rather than factual information.83.216.149.7 (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• This article is clearly very biased and is obviously a racist attempt to smear the Black British community by further promoting the well-worn anti-black narrative that "black people commit crime". Statistics released by the Ministry of Justice shows (rather obviously) that most crimes committed in UK are done by white people, so why is there such a focus on black people? . Could Wikipedia try to be a bit more credible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.144.167 (talk) 07:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
• "makes no attempt to explain what purpose there is to removing those factors". Hey, it is not Wikipedia's job to explain that in every single article where that could be an issue (of which there are hundreds). There is a link in the article already to controlling for a variable, which in turn links to confounding, which tries to explain that. If you can think of a way to improve this situation without creating massive duplication across Wikipedia, go ahead.--greenrd (talk) 09:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The article is by no means perfect or balanced, hence why I tagged it as such years back. In part, this lack of balance is due to the fact that it used to be called Black people and crime in the United Kingdom and hence only focused on black people. I tried to address some of the problems with the article by expanding the Explanations section back in 2010, but more work on the article is clearly needed. Cordless Larry (talk)

Telegraph statistics removed pending rewording

I've removed the statistics from the Telegraph temporarily until a better way of describing them is found. They were being described as "London crime statistics broken down by race", whereas they include people acquitted. While this was mentioned in a footnote, I think to describe them as crime statistics is highly problematic: people who are acquitted are not to be described as criminals. Suggestions for alternative wording are welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I happened to miss this thread. A slight change in wording from "crime statistics" to "crime-related statistics" should fix this. Nonetheless, complete removal of the material is unjustified. Please revert your edit, with rewording if necessary. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

"Crime-related statistics" still suggests that the people included have all committed crimes, whereas they have not. I will attempt to reword the material myself. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Something of an oversight, but the lengths gone to rectify it was excessive. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I happen to think that confusing accusations and criminal offenses is quite a serious matter but the important thing is that it's now resolved. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

My comprehension seems to fail at times and should have been more careful. Also apologise for my revert and missing this thread the first time. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I realise that I took rather drastic action, but this is obviously a sensitive issue. Incidentally, you might want to add statistics from page 8 of this report to the article. They give a more balanced picture than the London statistics alone, and usefully cover different stages of the criminal justice system, thus demonstrating how black people are disproportionately the subject of stops and searches, compared with arrests. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

That I've not included some information shouldn't be taken as an indication that I am somehow opposed to it. In fact, I thought about asking for your participation but you got here before I could. Agree that info from that table would be good. Of course, there's a lot of information that should be included but hasn't yet. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I wasn't suggesting you'd be opposed. I just wanted to make you aware of it, in case you weren't already. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the revision is not entirely accurate. It says "accusations of crime" when they were not merely "accusations" but actual action taken by the police. Perhaps a reword? Christopher Connor (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk) You obviously have a problem with certain races, and whilst I realise the futility of such a request, I will make it anyway, please cease expressing your racial bias though wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.144.167 (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight on minority views

I realise that this article is new, but I feel that as it stands, it gives undue weight to minority opinions such as those of Rod Liddle. Liddle's claims were found to be unsupported by the PCC, which I've now noted in the article. The rest of the article is largely reliant on newspaper commentary. While it is OK to include this, we need more academic sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

(Somewhat superceded by above) Your removal of The Sunday Telegraph report is not acceptable, particularly when you've expressed an opinion on the article's DYK nomination. The report is about statistics obtained from the Metropolitan Police and highly relevant to the article. Indeed, your explanation doesn't explain your removal of this; you talk more about "minority opinions" and Rod Liddle. The scope of the article is not limited to academic and government studies. Christopher Connor (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my comments here were not supposed to be about the Telegraph. Those are above. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you're slightly confusing DUE. This article isn't solely about (explanations of) crime rates of black people. If it were, then Liddle's view would indeed be given little weight. The bit on Liddle is more about the controversy and reaction, for which it received its fair share of media attention. I don't think there's disagreement that it falls under the subject of 'Black people and crime in the United Kingdom'. To me, it's difficult to shorten it without losing any context. We need the bit on the murder plot from the black rappers, to show he didn't just make these comments out of the blue. The whole of his second paragraph is also referenced in the sources, and trimming part of it would be misleading. I suppose the bit after this is less relevant, but helpful to show that he was not really correct. Christopher Connor (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that we need to remove Liddle's comments. As you explain, they are notable even if he was wrong. However, WP:DUE states: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them 'due weight'". My point is that, at the moment, we don't really mention that many academic sources or other non-newspaper treatment of the topic. I'm calling for expansion, not cutting material. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

ref #4

ref #4 [1] does not support the statement "Statistics have generally found that black people commit a disproportionate amount of crime in the United Kingdom, particularly violent crime such as gun crime" and I have tagged it according. I must say that the article title is not particularly neutral and much of the article appears to be a POV synthesis. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the statistics in the source are about victims, not perpetrators of crime. I've suggested to the article creator that it be moved to Race and crime in the United Kingdom and broadened out to resemble Race and crime in the United States. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::That would be a very good idea. I suggest that a page move request is opened. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about statements such as "In 2008/09 there were over seven times more stop and searches of black people per head of population than of white people". While this is sourced, the article fails to mention something else rather important from the source: that black people are disproportionately likely to be stopped and searched relative to being arrested (suggesting that they are unfairly targeted for stops and searches). Such oversights give the impression of deliberate POV. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed they do. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Statements in source are "The statistics confirm that the problem of gun crime is not unique to the black community, but they provide stark evidence that the black community is over-represented to a frightening degree." and "murderers tend mostly to target members of their own ethnic group." [2] The white collar crime thing is also not controversial (wrt less research than other types of crime). Still, if you don't want an unsourced word anywhere at anytime, and to adhere extremely closely to sources, we can do that too. Also point to which parts are a synthesis. Christopher Connor (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The stop and search thing was suggested by someone at DYK. He seemed to think that statistic alone was enough (to suggest bias against black people) [3] and didn't mention arrests or cautions. See how perceptions differ? Now Cordless Larry thinks that the lower arrest/caution figure suggests that they are unfairly targeted for stops and searches, but the relationship isn't as simple as that. People tend to think, here, if A is greater than B then bias against, if equal no bias, if A less than B then favourable towards -- that the relationship should be linear, when not really the case. Christopher Connor (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, the statistics don't definitely establish that discrimination is going on (for example, it might be to do with the black population being more concentrated in London than average, where more stop and searches go on), but it is surely helpful to present statistics on arrests alongside them. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but to suggest I omitted them due to "deliberate POV" is not true. If the guy also said to include arrests and cautions, I would pobably have done that. Christopher Connor (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

My apologies if I misread your intentions. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result was Move -Selket ^Talk 00:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Black people and crime in the United Kingdom → Race and crime in the United Kingdom — Suggesting move to a more neutral title, where the article can be expanded and broadened to consider the wider relationship between race and crime in the UK, akin to Race and crime in the United States. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support: as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Non-judgmental descriptive titles, the current article title is judgemental, and the proposed title is not. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support per nom. I don't like "Black people" in titles at all, but especially here when there's a natural alternative. Adpete (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Current article is a daughter of the proposed move location, not an alternative, so a move is not appropriate; it should be a merge. The nom doesn't justify the request but talks about why another article should exist -- well that can be created without affecting this one. Claims that the title isn't neutral also doesn't wash; this is the most neutral title possible for the subject matter. Actually non-neutral titles would be 'black people disproportionately committing crimes'. The only alternative would be Black British and crime or something. Indeed if it were non-neutral, suggest a better title (that is actually on the same topic). The new article should have been created first, developed, and then a merge proposal put forth, not what is basically the other way round. If this were moved, most of the material would be lost since they only cover the same topic to a limited degree (more so when DUE is applied to a 5kb new article). This would appear to be an AfD through the back door. Why not just AfD it straight? Christopher Connor (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Another issue is that racial groups vary significantly. I doubt a general article can explain all these points effectively. (Where a point applies generally to many groups, that can be pointed out in the article.) See for example here which says "Indeed this highlights the danger of lumping all ethnic-minority groups together when examining 'race and crime' - a point we will reiterate through this chapter", and page 163 where the authors say they will focus particularly on black minority groups. Christopher Connor (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that we "lump all ethnic-minority groups together". In fact, I'm arguing that we should change the title so that the article doesn't just focus on minorities. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

In fact, the source you quote could easily be interpreted to mean that we shouldn't lump diverse people together as "black", which is what this article does. So actually, it can be used to support the move. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

No, because in page 163 it says "In recent years terrorist crimes have been committed by many different ethnic-minority groups in many countries including Britain. However, the focus of this chapter is on the criminal activities of black ethnic minorities in Britain". (My bold.) This is only one source, anyway, there are plenty of others. Christopher Connor (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

But that goes against our sources which do focus on minorities. Christopher Connor (talk) 03:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Many of them mention white people as well as minorities. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

There are whole reports and books that discuss this topic. Of course they will also discuss other groups so that a comparison can be made. The point is that there are sources which focus primarily on this group. There are other sources that discuss the topic is a whole. This points to two articles. Basically, is there any reason to go against the reliable sources? Christopher Connor (talk) 20:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

This is about title, not content Purplebackpack89 01:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support, the alternative would be to eventually develop a whole set of things like Asians and crime in the United Kingdom, Middle Easterners and crime in the United Kingdom, WASPs and crime in the United Kingdom, etc. Clearly, since they are all related topics, they can be subsumed under one article. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Invalid OTHERSTUFF argument. Those examples are not as notable as this article. Christopher Connor (talk) 03:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, all of those probably are notable Purplebackpack89 01:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support Everybody should know better than think "black people" is an accepted term in the 21st century. Grsz¹¹ 02:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Only it is, according to our sources. Other terms used include 'black ethnic groups' and 'black community'. Christopher Connor (talk) 03:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support 'Black people' is a very problematic term, especially in a British context where it covers at least two groups. The article seems to be mainly on Afro-Carribean people but that's hardly clear, and an article on 'Afro-Carribean people and crime in the United Kingdom' would be no better.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Invalid argument. You haven't proposed a new name (that is on the same topic). Maybe one involving 'Black or Black British'. Also, see WP:VOTE which this appears to be. Christopher Connor (talk) 20:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
    • comment WP:VOTE simply says that you should WP is not decided by votes but by discussion. So it is valid to indicate support or opposition, but editors should also give reasons and provide arguments. I think all editors so far have participated in that spirit and this hasn't degenerated into a simple poll.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Okay, there were rationales, but they were short, easily refuted, or irrelevant. Hence, it was more of a vote than a discussion. Christopher Connor (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen any refutation of the Wikipedia policy [[WP:Naming conventions#Non-judgmental descriptive titles so far. Would Christopher Connor care to address this? Jezhotwells (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

"Where articles have descriptive titles, choose titles that do not seem to pass judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject." The title is three phrases (black people, crime, United Kingdom) joined together and no judgement is being passed. Simply insisting that a title doesn't pass policy doesn't make it so. Indeed, if it didn't, I'm sure you would be able to think of an alternative that does meet the policy, which so far you haven't. Christopher Connor (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think that Race and crime in the United Kingdom would be the best title as suggested by four other editors. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I've already established that they are different topics. So you can't say the title of a topic is more neutral than the title of a different topic, that would make no sense. As stated, none of them have refuted my arguments; they're merely voting. Christopher Connor (talk) 22:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment The title is not judgmental and black people, in general, is an acceptable term. Judgmental would be "Black people committing high levels of crime in the United Kingdom". Black is common in the references and used throughout the article, with the possibility for more clarification. The issue of black people, crime, and the police targeting them, is a significant issue that is not unique to the UK. The article's title may trigger one's stereotypes or preconceived notions. The proposed title would be great itself but I think a problem is the lack of corresponding "article matter" to support it. Is there content anywhere else that could be inserted or merged into this article to support to proposed title? I am curious if this is such a significant and notable issue that it deserves a standalone article/fork of the proposed title. Historically and currently, it appears so.--NortyNort (Holla) 07:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not aware of material elsewhere on Wikipedia that can be merged with what we have here, but the sources contain such material so the article could very quickly be expanded to cover other groups. See, for example, this source, which is full of comparative statistics. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support, mostly from nominator's rationale. Purplebackpack89 20:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I've already discussed the nominator's rationale. Perhaps you could join the debate at the relevant point as opposed to making a "per nom"-type comment. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I can make a per nom comment if I so choose. The relevant point is: "Should this page be moved", and I said yes. I've also commented on your little WP:RM discussion that attempts to circumvent this thread Purplebackpack89 01:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Chris has posted at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves claiming this discussion is inappropriate and asking for somebody to close it, presumably wanting them to close without moving the page. Grsz¹¹ 00:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support because "black people" is ambiguous in the context of a global encyclopedia. See for example Black People and Their Place in History. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 02:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• Reluctant Oppose - I would much prefer this article be subsumed into Race and crime in the United Kingdom but this article is not equivalent. An effort needs to be made to create that article, then merge this information into it. At the moment, we would move this article and it would then be mis-titled. Bigger digger (talk) 13:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

African-Caribbean and black

The source Jewkes, Student handbook of criminal justice and criminology, p.81–92, uses African-Caribbean and black, in my opinion, interchangeably (otherwise it wouldn't make sense). I am going to proceed in the assumption that the source does indeed use it interchangeably. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you should - you are making assumptions. The two aren't directly interchangeable - what about black Africans (Nigerians, Ghanaians, South Africans etc)? 81.147.150.204 (talk) 09:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Permalink before move

Permalink before move. Christopher Connor (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Your point? rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It's self-explanatory. But since you don't seem to understand, let me explain. Even though it can be retrieved from the history, it's convenient to have a link here because the article has moved to a different topic and will likely change dramatically, meaning the content from the old article will be lost. Christopher Connor (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so it's a link to The Right Version? rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Who said anything about the "right version" and why are you pointing to a Meta humourous essay? As explained above, the link makes it easy to see the version immediately before the move, useful because the title has been changed and the contents need to reflect that. You don't seem to have anything productive to say with regards to the subject matter. See WP:TPG. Christopher Connor (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

And the point is?

I can't understand the value of this article. If a coloured person had stolen a loaf of bread because he was starving; it appears this article would suggest: Most loaves of bread are stolen by coloured people. What the article should be doing is saying: Most loaves of bread are stolen by starving people, and then saying, most starving people are coloured. In its current form it reads like a piece of thinly disguised, racist propaganda.--Ykraps (talk) 23:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

So, in regards to committing crimes, what would replace "starving"? As you can see above, the article was renamed. If you can expand it on other races/root causes with reliable sources, then do so. In the end, it is what it is. If colored people and crime are a notable problem then Wikipedia shouldn't be politically correct.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

People commit crime for a number of reasons: poverty, peer pressure, greed etc. They don't commit crime because they are a member of a particular ethnic group, and although the article goes some way to addressing this, it doesn't go far enough. The inclusion of Gobineaus work is completely irrelevant and further damages the article's credibility. I can find plenty of studies looking at the sociological reasons for crime but not the relationship between race and crime; which begs the question 'How notable is it?'--Ykraps (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on the reasons but I don't think the article means to point it to one race. This article was originally started with "Black people..." in the title and covered the problem of crime amongst black people in the UK. It was renamed to "Race..." without the article being expanded to cover all races and further, theories. Now, the new title and heavy use of black people shows undue weight on the subject, which the title alludes to. Race and crime in the United States appears to be the only similar article to this and covers theories (some social) along with different races. The relationship between race and crime is the subject of study and notable, from a quick search, a book here and many others in the "Related books" section on that page. Even without studies and recognition, its notability is ingrained in culture too.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I also agree that we need to expand the article based on more reliable, sociological sources. I have tried to do this since it was moved to the present title, but I haven't had time to do more. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree now that it probably is notable. It has been a while since I studied either law or sociology and my resources are out of date. It appears that we are of one mind regarding the article and some of my fears about the point of it have been alleviated.--Ykraps (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

NortyNort I find your reasoning strange. You note that the article was originally started with: "Black people...", yet you do not think '...the article means to point it to one race.'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.144.167 (talk) 08:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

2011 riots?

This article could probably use a discussion of the 2011 riots. Maybe it belongs in the london article, I'm not sure. But there was a considrable debate about the role of race (if any) in the recent riots—most notably the row over David Starkey on BBC One. --75.73.176.26 (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It could probably also benefit from a discussion of 2013 Newcastle derby riot or is rioting only a crime when it doesn't only involve white people?

Which "black" ? Article unclear.

The use of the word "Black" in this article is very misleading. Which black is this article talking about? There are two main type of blacks in the UK according to the Office of National Statistics : "Black Africans" and "Black Caribbeans". To use the generic word "black" as used in this article is very misleading and dangerous. 86.1.102.119 (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

So far as the crime statistics are concerned, the ethnic classification is that set out in Appendix A of the source - so, "black" is the terminology "used by the police when they visually identify someone as belonging to an ethnic group". Other agencies in other circumstances use self-identification, with three groups, "Black – African", "Black – Caribbean", and "Black – Other". Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Then the article needs to deal with it because the problem is clearly a word "black" which is extremely unclear. black is a color, not a race, and certainly not a true ethnicity. The same police identify Mix-heritage people as "Black", they call Somali black, and they do not identify with this term. Ethiopians do not either. hence the entire article is nonsense because reading it is not only all over the place, but it is using a confusing color-based term to describe what is treats as a serious race-relations issue (without even understanding race). Black African is an outdated term, so Nigerians are called Africans. the history section starts with Lee Jasper and only talks about so-called black people, yet the article is called Race and Crime. --Inayity (talk) 08:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

That's an issue that needs to be taken up with the people who compile the official police statistics - not with us, here. We simply report what the sources say. If there is a public controversy about the police's use of the word "black", we would report that as well. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Inayity: Somalis, Ethiopians and Eritreans indeed generally do not identify as "black". This is because they are not closely related culturally [4], linguistically [5], or genetically to Sub-Saharan African populations [6][7][8]. The reason for this is that they have a different ancestral origin. The skeletal remains of the first Afro-Asiatic speakers still exist in East Africa; they date to the Neolithic period (when they first settled in the region), and they are unrelated to those of the ancestors of Sub-Saharan African populations [9][10]. Also, Horn populations are actually socially classified in various ways. Although the census categories are ultimately based on self-designation, Somali community groups took part in the lobbying for the new "Arab" entry, which is consequently in part aimed at them [11]. At any rate, most of the crimes reported here don't involve Horn populations, so this is perhaps academic. Middayexpress (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It is an issue for Wikipedia because Wikipedia is just not a copy and paste of what sources say, if it was it would be of no use to any reader. If clarity is missing then the object of this page is lost. Just read the article from top to bottom. And this is why editors edit and add notes and add caveats, and disclaimers for clarity. We not that passive. --Inayity (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, Wikipedia is very much based on what reliable sources say. A degree of interpretation is often necessary, but diverting official statistics into a discussion about the validity of those statistics - at least in the absence of a third-party reliable source that covers that is - would be original research. It could also be said that there is little breakdown of "white" in the same statistics. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Breadth of article

Should cover more a historical timescale and other ethnicities. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC).

Proportionality

There is strong evidence that, once stopped and searched, black people are no more likely than white people to be arrested, suggesting that they are disproportionately targeted.

Could someone check the source (Britton, Nadia Joanne. Student Handbook of Criminal Justice and Criminology. p. 83)? Now the conclusion doesn't follow from the statement: if the rate of arrest is the same for everyone, conditional on them having been stopped and searched, it can't be (by itself) a proof of disproportionate targeting. Alaexis_¿question? 19:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The source is a bit more specific:

For example, cumulative statistical evidence over many years has shown that young black men are on average five to eight times more likely to be stopped and searched by the police than their white counterparts. However, there is also a great deal of evidence to show that they are no more likely than white people to be arrested having been stopped, implying that there is no justification for disproportionately targeting them.

LethargicParasite (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

That is quite odd. If rates of arrest are similar after stop and search then that would imply that stop and search is proportionate. If rates of arrest for black people were lower after stop and search then that would imply they are being disproportionately targeted. The source says that aren't more likely to be arrested, but it doesn't say they are less likely, implying it is similar. 86.174.36.153 (talk) 12:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

That's talked about in the book, same page, but no, no it wouldn't. (1) For instance, if 1% of all stop and searches are going to result in arrests, then you can disproportionately arrest a demographic by focusing on stopping and searching that demographic. (2) It would be unlikely if a focus on stopping and searching a particular demographic wasn't *also* accompanied by a focus on arresting them as well.

Anyways, for as long as people are being arrested for personal drug offences and for the criminalization of being poor or homeless, this discussion is not important. Actual justice and a better society doesn't start here. LethargicParasite (talk) 03:11, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

what about other forms of crime

The article is unbalanced and lazily only deals with what is perceived as "black crime and unfortunately plays into stereotypes.

Where is mention of other forms of crime, like street grooming which is mainly perpetuated by Asians and whites?

https://www.asianimage.co.uk/news/19051694.grooming-gangs-will-race-always-factor/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-51467518

https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/17353046.councillor-call-work-identify-disproportionately-high-number-grooming-suspects-pakistani-community/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MqrO6p2Woc

https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/05/20/its-time-to-tell-the-truth-about-grooming-gangs/

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/revealed-disproportionately-high-numbers-pakistani-8439716

https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/international/uk-court-jails-20-men-mostly-pakistanis-for-sexual-abuse-of-teenage-girls

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/quilliam-grooming-gangs-report-asian-abuse-rotherham-rochdale-newcastle-a8101941.html

Or crimes involving terror which again, is mainly committed by Asians and whites?

"On 31 March 2021, 98 (46%) of the 215 prisoners in custody for terrorism�connected offences defined themselves as Asian or Asian British, 68 (32%) as White and 18 (8%) as Black or Black British. The majority (73%) of prisoners in custody for terrorism-related offences on 31 March 2021 declared themselves as Muslim. 25 prisoners (12%) were of a Christian denomination"

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7613/CBP-7613.pdf

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/terror-arrests-children-race-white-asian-b1972850.html

ROC7 (talk) 11:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Child sex tourism

Is there a need for a section on White British males travelling to Asia for sex with children? This seems to have been covered on many reports and articles. 90tillinfinitydue (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

No. 2A00:23C8:9F93:FB01:A0D2:4AA6:E1F8:2367 (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Information Literacy and Scholarly Discourse

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 August 2022 and 7 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vmcostan, Mclegend17, Cruckert, Aforste, Dsackey (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Sisselerickson, Mauc2330.

— Assignment last updated by Vmcostan (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)