Talk:Racial bias in criminal news in the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Citing help!

Hey so I made an addition to the article, but the Wikipedia is citing it as a new reference with the number 7 when it is the same as 3! So if you could please change that and let me know here in the talk page I would appreciate that!

Thanks! ArjunChawla175 (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 21:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Formatting

Hey Wikipedia! So the way I am formatting this article I started, I am doing by race, so African Americans will be a header, and then Muslims etc. Please for the sake of consistency abide by this formatting. ArjunChawla175 (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Islam is not a race

Therefore I suggest the section on Muslims should be merged with the existing coverage of this topic in the Islamophobia article, under its Allegations of Islamophobia section, in the Media subsection.--greenrd (talk) 10:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out!

Hey thank you for pointing that out. I have reread the articles and moved it to islamophobia instead. I completely agree with your statement. ArjunChawla175 (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

RE: Neutrality and representing sources

Great advice, I will change those tonight. Thanks Greenrd ArjunChawla175 (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Fox News Section

It seems the only sources cited for the Fox News section is Media Matters, which is by no means a neutral source. That's fine, as long as they are quoted as a point of view and not summarized as fact, but an entire section using a biased organization's talking points is not. It either needs balance from opposing viewpoints to needs to be removed completely. This may be true for other sections of this article as well. Kjphill1977 (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

peer review

Racial bias in criminal news

• I really enjoy the use of data and tables. However, the wording is slightly confusing. Maybe try explaining a little bit more.
• The amount of blue linked words is really useful and helpful.
• Side bar!
• ayoo, I added the section Police Tainted by Bias, hope you enjoy it
• Not sure how many times this article has been edited, but as it stands now, it is neither neutral nor particularly educational. It does not address the issue of racial bias in the media in a meaningful way, and many of the references do not support the point being made. The article simply assumes from the outset that racial bias is widespread in the media, but never makes a case for its existence, nor does it examine whether the perception of bias is a reflection of institutional bias, individual bias on the part of reporters an editors, or an accurate reflection of events in society.

For example, consider the opening graph: Racial bias has been recorded in criminal news reporting from the United States, particularly with regard to African American individuals, and a perceived fear of African Americans amongst European and White Americans.[2] This graph simply states that bias has been recorded in criminal news reports, but the footnote at the end does not support that -- it deals with Caucasians fearing African Americans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomaskehoe (talk • contribs) 03:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Take care of this article

Hey Wikipedia!

I am in a Communication class at University of Massachusetts Amherst and our assignment for the semester was to write a Wikipedia article and I started this one. Over the course of the semester I have grown really fond of Wikipedia and really fond of this article as well. As the semester has ended, I hope to continue to improve this article but if I get too busy, please positively contribute to this article and don't delete information from this article unless you REALLY think it is irrelevant (post why you think so in the talk page). I have spent many hours over the past 3 months working on this article and I don't want to see this article loose credibility. Also, if you could begin to add other races to this as I have only added African Americans it would really put the article on a new course. Thank you for all your contributions to this article and I hope to see this article manifest into a fantastic one.

Sincerely and best regards, ArjunChawla175 (talk) 03:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Well this article already anti-correlates with reality, so I don't see how it's possible to loose more credibility than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:85:C100:AFF:F003:9E03:7553:B464 (talk) 01:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

In the event you actually want to turn this into a credible unbiased article you can start by looking that how likely news reports are to report the race of the suspect and how that correlates with his race and the race of the victim. Generarly a white suspect will be described as such, a black suspect will only be described as a "youth". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:85:C100:AFF:F003:9E03:7553:B464 (talk) 01:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Going to dive into a little more of where racial bias comes from psychologicaly in the earlier portion of the article using this source from an online college database.

Drewpy22 (talk) 04:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)Richardson, L. Song, and Phillip Atiba Goff. “Mplicit Racial Bias in Public Defender Triage .” Yale Law Journal Compan Inc, vol. 122, no. SYMPOSIUM, ser. 8, June 2013, pp. 2626–2649. 8, www.jstor.org/stable/23528687.

Possible new sections

I selected this article for a class assignment contemplated adding new sections including bias towards Latinos and possibly immagrants--Student wiki nikki (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality and representing sources

Thanks for your work, User:ArjunChawla175. As of right now, the neutrality of this article is not perfect - because this is a controversial subject, contentious claims always need to be written as "[person X] argues" or similar wording - not just stating the claims as fact - yes, some of them are written the right way, but not all of them. Also, if anyone reading this finds any reputable sources - preferably scholarly ones! - disputing any of this material, maybe those disagreements should be added to provide some balance to this article.--greenrd (talk) 09:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

EXCELLENT, User:ArjunChawla175 and User:Greenrd. I couldn't agree more. Neutrality and a scientific basis to included claims would be excellent goals. Good writing won't make something true, just better at misleading. Empirical data is not important, but is the only basis from which to argue that bias is present without subjecting the reader to more bias.

Depending on how mass shooter (verses murder) is defined has been another black-dominated category of violence in the United States. Will we define it as 2 people? Or 3. Must they die? Or is being shot at adequate? Must it happen contiguously? Or is within one adequate? Most places gerrymander the data to suit their preferences, but regardless, the point is the same. These aren't evenly distributed by population size, and they're not reported accurately. To the contrary, most people think this an exclusively white-male activity. Simply false.

Non-Hispanic Caucasians committed 33% of the homicides on average (per annum) which is a half-percent of murders per percent of population. In comparison to Blacks, at 4% per percent and Hispanics at about 1% per percent population, most of which is intra-racial.

Interracial murders on the other hand, are more disparate: Though not as out-of-proportion as simple assaults, the rate of white unjustified homicides of blacks by whites occurs at a rate of 1 per 1,200,000 whites. Blacks kill whites at a rate of 1:80,000 per annum or 15x the rate per capita of the reverse. This certainly is not equal. And it is also not close.

For instance, in 2018, there were 593,498 interracial instances of violent felonies committed between blacks and whites (aggregate). However, of those 593,498, blacks committed 537,204 of them (90.5%) despite being 20% of the white population or 1/6th the combined (group) population of 240-million Americans (40-million African Americans and 200-million caucasians). Calculated per capita, Blacks attacked Whites at a rate of 47x the reverse. How often should incidents of each respective group as the attacker be covered to provide the public an accurate representation of their respective risks?

Within stories discussing interracial violence between blacks and caucasians, covering each perpetrator-group at a 1:1 ratio seems rather misleading. Whichever metric is used, the rate of black violence is wildly out of proportion, and coverage that belies that fact can only be described as misleading at best and by some standards appears to be propaganda, unless coupled with the counterintuitive facts to the actual rates of occurrence were included with those stories.

We're not provided a proportionate sample of the rates of occurrence. More poignantly, I think most (including wikipedia members) will be hostile to these data as we've been on a steady diet of countervailing claims for many years and have been told that any claims to the contrary are predicated on racism. I expect this hostility despite the fact that all data is readily accessible to anyone willing to dispassionately review it. Why should it to require more than mere citations to irrefutable data to have an article reflective of these facts?

I apologize in advance if I've posted this information in the wrong area or have signed it inaccurately. I have no desire to offend honest people. If this is in the wrong location, please feel free to relocate it or notify me; I've earmarked this page to be watched. TrumanLA (talk) 23:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

What are the sources used for these claims? ~ cygnis insignis 03:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Very serious issues with this article — needs to be nuked

Is this article a joke? As per many comments in the above topic, this article is in no way a comprehensive, accurate, or neutral treatment of the subject matter. It's hackneyed, seemingly stitched together from completely random sources, and offers no sort of (ironically) "unbiased" overview of the topic. Just a brief list of glaring issues:

• The first sentence—"Racial biases are a form of implicit bias"—is false, as not all racial biases are implicit.
• The entire section on "Fox News" is cribbed from Media Matters (an utterly non-neutral source).
• The entire "ABC News" section concerns a single episode of 20/20 on Mumia-whatever.
• The last section, "Police bias", has nothing to do with the article topic.

I started trying to correct some obvious errors—then realized the entire thing was a shambles. This is so far below even Wikipedia standards that it cannot credibly remain here. Does anyone with more experience know how to go about deleting it? Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 22:36, 25 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): Drewpy22, NinjaAlleyCat.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 October 2018 and 12 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Maddiek47.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:56, 18 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 11 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) 02:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)