Talk:Biosocial criminology: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:17, 25 June 2012

Sociology C‑class Mid‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biology C‑class Low‑importance

	Biology portal Biosocial criminology is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography C‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Biosocial criminology appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 April 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that biosocial criminology predicts that left handed individuals are more likely to engage in criminal behavior than right handed ones?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2010/April.

Wikipedia

Strange tagging

Maunus is strangely making various tags on the article. The sources are clearly stated. Please explain. Academica Orientalis (talk) 23:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing strange about these tags. Merely saying that "studies have been criticized" is not enough to achieve balanced coverage. You of course have to say by whom and for which reasons. Merely citing the review is not enough, you need to include citations to the articles that made the critiques. The article is full of weaseling like that.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement that studies cited in a review must be listed. Academica Orientalis (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No but we have this funny requirement called "NPOV" - I don't know if you've heard of it. It states that if there is critical coverage of a topic then it needs to be balancedly included, not merely mentioned.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither does NPOV requre that articles and authors cited in a review should be listed. Claiming citation are missing is not the same as claiming POV. Academica Orientalis (talk) 23:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, but in this case the missing citation of the opposing viewpoint makes the article non-neutral.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no missing citation since none is required for sources in review sources. The statements have sources with the exception of some in the history section. If you want to argue POV you should use different tags/templates and provide an adequate explanations. Academica Orientalis (talk) 23:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your are also for some reason placed an article template in the middle of the article instead of at the top. Why? It disrupts the text. Academica Orientalis (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just supply the sourcing where I ask for it thank you. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can add the review sources but it should not be needed since placing them at the end of the paragraph is perfectly acceptable. But if you insist I will.Academica Orientalis (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have removed many of the citation needed templates which is good. What is your objection to the Cinderella effect source? Academica Orientalis (talk) 23:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source is Daly and Wilson who did the original study. It doesn't mention what the critiques are or who made them. Clearly tendentious.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source is a review. The sources for the review can be found by reading it. There is no requirement that the sources for a review article should be listed. Academica Orientalis (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not claiming there is such a requirement. There is a requirement that the article be balanced. It currently is not. A review of critical literature by the criticized authors themselves is obviously not neutral or reliable.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are arguing POV you should not use the "who" template but some other. Academica Orientalis (talk) 00:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The who template is for weasel words such as "it has been argued", "there has been criticism", "some scholars have said", "it is sometimes claimed" etc. Those kinds of phrases give the appearance of being neutral by acknowledging the existence of criticism, but fails to adequately show the reason what the criticism consisted of and who made it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BIOSOCIAL CRIMINOLOGY: A CRITIQUE. Tony Platt and Paul Takagi. Crime and Social Justice , No. 11 (spring-summer 1979), pp. 5-13
Kevin Walby. The rise of biocriminology: Capturing observable bodily economies of 'criminal man'. Criminal Justice August 1, 2010 10: 261-285
67 Brook. L. Rev. 71 (2001-2002) Seeing and Believing: Images of Heredity in Biological Theories of Crime; Rafter, Nicole Hahn

A thirty years old source is not very impressive in today's rapidly changing biological fields. Just listing sources without explaining what is concretely supposed to POV is not helpful. For all I know you are just Googling titles without reading them. Academica Orientalis (talk) 00:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read these. I don't need to. You do if you want to make the article neutral.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 *BIOSOCIAL CRIMINOLOGY: A CRITIQUE. Tony Platt and Paul Takagi. Crime and Social Justice , No. 11 (spring-summer 1979), pp. 5-13
 *Kevin Walby. The rise of biocriminology: Capturing observable bodily economies of 'criminal man'. Criminal Justice August 1, 2010 10: 261-285
-Brook. L. Rev. 71 (2001-2002)
+*67 Brook. L. Rev. 71 (2001-2002)  Seeing and Believing: Images of Heredity in Biological Theories of Crime; Rafter, Nicole Hahn
-Seeing and Believing: Images of Heredity in Biological Theories of Crime; Rafter, Nicole Hahn
 :A thirty years old source is not very impressive in today's rapidly changing biological fields. Just listing sources without explaining what is concretely supposed to POV is not helpful. For all I know you are just Googling titles without reading them. [[User:Acadēmica Orientālis|Academica Orientalis]] ([[User talk:Acadēmica Orientālis|talk]]) 00:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
+::I haven't read these. I don't need to. You do if you want to make the article neutral.[[User:Maunus|·ʍaunus]]·[[User talk:Maunus|snunɐw·]] 00:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)