Talk:Correlates of crime

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

Missing information in Metapedia?[edit]

Does the corresponding Metapedia page reliable? Does it contain the missing information from the Wikipedia page? https://en. metapedia .org/wiki/Race_and_crime — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.114.48.186 (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SSCI 2831U[edit]

This article does not provide much detail in regards to the statistical correlation of criminal behaviour. I will be adding adding more information to the Race, ethnicity, and immigration stub by specifically looking at the correlation between race and criminal behaviour in Canada.


Does no one else notice or is concerned with the fact that the vast majority of subheadings and correlative claims in this article originate from a single source? Many of the statements made are also contradictory with other statistical analysis (such as higher crime rates in more religious states or lower proportions of atheists in jail compared to the public). Unless someone provides a validation for the apparent issues, I will return to mark the article as lacking research and biased, as there is no alternative views, explanations, or research. 166.147.104.23 (talk) 09:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article either needs more sources or it needs to be scrapped. It's basically a summary of a book at this point. 114.77.28.246 (talk) 11:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this article also seems very US-centered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.7.24 (talk) 01:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYNTH[edit]

Article seems to be a compilation of different reasonings about how one may act in relation to crime and punishment. I do think the psychological aspect is correct, however, this piece may be questionable, as I think it is WP:SYNTH of material that is available on Wikipedia. Also, no cites to any outside published works that may give this article reason to live, thus WP:OR. Would the author reconsider these points before I contest the removed PROD? Phearson (talk) 05:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some sources. None of the given reason is controversial in the academic literature.Miradre (talk) 05:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What about the Cultural and societal section? Needs sources as well. Phearson (talk) 05:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone goes to a major sociological theory of crime that has its own Wikipedia page. Look at the sources there.Miradre (talk) 05:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but they are related to crime, how? Do each of these articles explain? Phearson (talk) 05:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They all have a different theory for what causes crime.Miradre (talk) 05:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable[edit]

Missing a major cause I am surprised that this article fails to mention environmental lead as a cause of crime, particularly violent crime. This summary from 2005 gives the basic findings, and the study has (so far as I know) held up over time---and makes sense. I think some text and a link should be included. Montereyham (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC). Done, 1 March 2014 (anon).[reply]

I can't say I entirely agree with the premise of this article. Certain occurrences lead to certain other occurrences - that, I suspect, we can take for granted. My question, though, is whether this topic should deal with the cause-effect path from a causative premise, as this article does, or from the point of view of the effects. In other words, should this article be Causes and correlates of crime or Effects of ... with the latter being any of the events, circumstances, etc that can lead to crime.

I also have to question the statistics mentioned in this article. Not having access to the source, the casual reader will have no idea when or where the data was obtained. Aside from a single mention of America, there is no indication of from which cultural perspective this article has been written.

Regarding cultural perspectives, it is verifiable that different cultures and different countries have different views of what constitutes crime. It needs to be made clear here what is considered crime. Are we talking violent crime, assault with a deadly weapon, car theft and the like? At the moment, the article seems to focus on the criminal activity of, for want of a better term, "social dropouts". What about fraud, corruption and similar "white-collar" crimes?

There is contention, too, in the psychological traits of criminal activity. I've seen several that could suggest I should have been a criminal. That being the case, those points really need to be expanded and clarified. Perhaps those sections should be merged into Crime, if they're not already there.

Basically, the structure of the article seems logical but without elaborating on each cause/correlate as is done in the various other articles, the overall effect is to make the topic seem simplistic.

LordVetinari (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed simplistic. Basically what causes crime is the law. If there were no law there wqould be no crime. Now, different countries have different laws, making different actions criminal. The premise of this article is that one can even speak of general causes of "crime". Is there anything about the causes for someone stealing a loaf of bread, someone killing his spouse, someone criticizing the dictator, someone engaging in an unlawful consentual sexual activity, that makes it possible to speak of the "causes" of these different actions. The premise that one can identify "causes of crime" is false. Different crimes have different causes. Different countries have different definitions of crime. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we can't identify causes of crime for the reasons stated. For the article creator's sake, though, I should point out that this doesn't mean we can't identify causes of particular activities commonly considered criminal. We can identify motives for petty theft and we can identify causes for sex crimes. But it is faulty logic to mix these together just because legislators happen to legislate against both.
Nonetheless, I'll watch this page for a bit and see how it develops. As the article stands, I think it ought to go to AfD, but I'd rather let a discussion play out here first. LordVetinari (talk) 14:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added something about the main source. There is a vast literature on the subject. It is very strange that Wikipedia did not have an article on what causes crime. Obviously this is of major interest for society and the areas has been much studied.Miradre (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is still very poor, it would be better just to remove it. Most of the claims are from the same source, and many of them are highly questionable. Such as this one: "High religious involvement, high importance of religion in one's life, membership in an organized religion, and orthodox religious beliefs are associated with less criminality. Areas with higher religious membership have lower crime rates.". Makes me wonder how it can be that some of the least religious countries in the world, such as Denmark and Norway, tend to be among the better countries in many (most?) crime statistics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.90.195.55 (talk • contribs)

Somatotype[edit]

Why is this pseudoscientific theory included in the article?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.3.79 (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello?--67.85.3.79 (talk) 03:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscussed page move[edit]

Maunus, who I have frequently had disputes with in the past, has suddenly moved this article, which I have created and contributed much of the material to, without prior discussions on the talk page. It was moved to "Correlates of crime" from the earlier title "Causes and correlates of crime". It is false to claim that it only discusses correlations. For example, there is a section about theories that claim causality. I will move the material back to prior title unless some good justifications are given. Academica Orientalis (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is clearly not interested in presenting the body of literature on the causes of crime, it is a list of crime statistics and correlates based primarily on one source. If the article is to have causes of crime in its scope it will have to include the body of literature that exists on that topic.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All page moves likely to be controversial should follow the procedure at Wikipedia:Requested moves which you have not done. If you think there is currently material missing in an article, then you add the add material. You do not move or delete the article for that reason. The main source is a large review of thousands of crime studies. They do not only use correlations but concepts such as statistical tests for significance. Again, many theories claiming causality are mentioned.Academica Orientalis (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This move shouldn't be controversial since it is mainly bringing the article title in line with is content. I was basically doing you a favor since I realize you are not interested in what actually causes crime and that you are unlikely to ever do the research needed to make this article describe research on causes of crime. (In case I am wrong then maybe you'd want to start by looking at this "Michael Dow Burkhead. 2006.The search for the causes of crime: a history of theory in criminology. McFarland & Co.. Second part of this introduction to criminology is dedicated to theories of crime causation - it distinguishes between Rational choice based theories, theories based on traits (i.e. your favorite ones), and social structure theories (which accounts for 4 of 6 chapters in this part - this weighting obviously doesn't correspond to the weight given to the relevance of social factors in crime causation in this article). ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spare me the personal attacks. You did not reply to my arguments. Again, one does not move or delete a page because one thinks content is missing or you disagree with content weight. Instead, improve the article. See my earlier above comments regarding the article and sources not only describing correlations. If you still want to move the article, make a proper entry at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Academica Orientalis (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did improve it by moving it to its proper title. The past title was misleading. There is no reason why the topic of causes and correlates should even be considered together - they seem to be kept quite consistently sepearate in the literature. The only book you actually read and used for writing the article is only about correlates.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we just have an RfC on the title then?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You think it is misleading. I disagree for reasons already stated so please follow the proper Wikipedia procedure and make a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves if you still want to move. Obviously correlations and causation are discussed together in any empirically based evaluation of theories. The title of the main source, the review of thousands of studies, is somewhat misleading since the contributing studies were summarized depending on whether they found statistically significant support for a particular relationship or not. It is not just a listing of correlations.Academica Orientalis (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the article. I don't need to request a move since it is at the location that I prefer. Why don't you file a requested move? Also finding a statistically significant correlation does not mean that there is causation involved in the correlation, it just means that the correlation is strong. You will see a very strong correlation between night time and cars driving with their lights on - but night doesn't cause cars to turn on their lights. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To add a quick reply to my more detailed comment in the section below, statistically speaking the current title ("correlates") is actually less misleading than the previous title ("causes and correlates"), because causality is usually seen as a special case of correlation. With regards to how well the title reflects the intended content of the article, both titles are acceptable really. The issue is just that the old title could mislead the untrained reader to think that correlation and causation are totally separate concepts. (Also, Whether Maunusl should have discussed the matter before the move is an entirely separate issue.) Well-restedTalk 14:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify - what I'm trying to say is that generally if two things have a causal relationship, they will also be correlated. So to me it's fine to keep the current title of the article ("correlates") and still add content showing causality. My view on this differs slightly from Maunusl's, but nevertheless I agree that the current title is better, if only slightly. Well-restedTalk 15:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Article title[edit]

Should this article be called "Causes and Correlates of Crime" (and therefore treat statistical correlations and theories of causality together) or just be called "Correlates of Crime" (which better describes the current content of the article that does not provide any information at all about criminological theories of crime causation). Or should it have a different title all together? ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding arguments is not really constructive. For my views please see the discussion below in the so called "meta-discussion" closed by Maunus without consensus as well as the section above. Academica Orientalis (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
....sigh. If there is an argument somewhere in the protestations about the validity of the rfC feel free to take them out of the hatting.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it currently stands should be moved back to Causes and correlates of crime, since it covers both of these closely related topics. It seems doubtful that it would be possible to conclusively differentiate causes from correlates. If it is possible to clearly differentiate them, then we could consider splitting the article into separate articles, one on causes and another on correlates; however it is not clear that such a division would be helpful (there might be other ways of dividing the article if it gets too long). Those advocating such a split should give some outline of which material would go into which article. Contrary to what ʍaunus says, the current article does contain information on causes of crime (whether those causes are "criminological" or not, I don't know).

I added a heading for the portion of the discussion that was "closed" just to make it clearer that discussion is continuing, and where to contribute. On that head, requested moves seems like the more obvious place to publicize this discussion. Unless it violates some rule, perhaps you should go ahead and list it here as well. Zodon (talk) 05:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I'm new to this discussion but let's hope I'm able to contribute. If this fact adds anything at all, I'm a statistician, or at least I use statistics quite extensively in my work/research. My opinion in summary, is that the article's title can be kept (as "Correlates of crime"), because in the context of academic research causal relationships are subsets of just correlation relationships (i.e. all causal relationships are also "correlation relationships", for lack of a better phrase). I'll list my detailed reasoning in point form ('cos I love bullet points):

  • The article's context is clearly within the realm of academic research on the relationship between crime and various other variables.
  • Within this context, causation is largely seen as a subset of correlation. I don't have time to search for and dig out a list of sources that explicitly or otherwise back this assertion up, but I think it's quite intuitive: if A causes B, whether B occurs depends to some extent on whether A occurs, so A and B are "correlated".
  • So in the context of academic thinking/research, and probably many other contexts, there's no need to say that these are a list of correlates and causes; you can just say that these are a list of correlates, and if you want you can just specially highlight the correlates that are causes.

Additional recommendations:

  • I'd also recommend a bit of reworking of some of the text of the article to reduce some confusion between the respective meanings of correlates and causes. The second section, "research and sources", for example, first seems to suggest that the focus of research is the causes of crime, then it suddenly starts elaborating on correlates instead.
  • I'd suggest specially highlighting cases where a causal link, as opposed to just a correlation, has been proven. Causality is a lot more interesting that correlation for obvious reasons, and sometimes requires quite a bit more statistical work to prove.

Just my two cents! -Well-restedTalk 12:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Causation and correlation are two different things. Correlation is a matter of quantifying observable facts - causation is explaining why those facts are observable. Explanation requires a theoretical framework and the kinds of causal explanations one finds largely depends on the framework. That is why text books in criminology talk about theories of causation. If one has a theory that race is biological and biology determines behavior the explanations of the observable crime statistics will be different than if you have a theory that race is basically a tool used to maintain social inequality and that social inequality determines behavior. If you believe in the primacy of free will and personal responsibility explanations will be different than if you believe in that social pressures can influence a person to act in certain ways. This article does not go into theories of causation at all. It is essentially a list of correlates (i.e. observable facts) - but it does not at all go into the question of how to describe causation. If the page is supposed to be about causes and correlates then half the article is missing. Basically my move was a way to avoid having to slap a {{lopsided}} tag onto the article. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand where you're coming from, and this difference between our views is actually moot since we're in agreement as to what the title should be. :) Nevertheless for the sake of clarity (and the fact that I love discussion!), it looks like the difference between our views Is that you're focusing on the difference as manifesting in the research approach, either the theoretical framework or experimental design (which I totally agree can differ wildly depending on the type of relationship hypothesised), while I'm focusing purely on the the way causation and correlation theoretically affect the relationship between variables, independent of the research question. Nevertheless, like I said this is moot since we're in agreement with respect to the issue here. Well-restedTalk 15:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In case it wasn't clear from my previous response, I agree with Well-rested that whatever title it is under, indication of which items have causal links established, rather than just correlations would improve the article. Zodon (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Well-rested that causes is a subset of correlations. However, I think some will take a title only mentioning correlations as an excuse for not discussing causes at all. Therefore it is better to include causes in the title. The article does in fact mention various discussions regarding causality at least in the later sections which discusses both narrow and broad theories and debates. Many of these theories and debates are discussed in great detail in other articles so only a summary is needed here. (Another point: Correlations require ordered variables. It is weird to talk about correlations for non-ordered variables like males and females. One does not say that crimes rates correlates with males. Males simply have higher crime rates.) Academica Orientalis (talk) 01:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's true that if the title is left as it is, users who don't see a correlate as a subset of a cause may simply not include causes, or may start a separate article "causes of crime", which would really be weird, or at the very least superfluous. On the other hand, under the old title I'd be concerned that it misleads users to think that causes and correlates are totally distinct concepts as opposed to one being a subset of the other. You know, this discussion is a rather odd one since we're debating based on how a hypothetically less-informed user might misinterpret the wording of the article. Perhaps the title's wording matters a lot less than making sure the intended content of the article is clarified in the lede? Well-restedTalk 03:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that there is no attempt in the article to distinguish items which are causes with items which are correlates, the more general term should be used. If reliable sources can be found that indicate one aspect causes crime, then it could be separated out into a separate section. Once that section was of non-trivial size, moving it back to the original title would make sense. aprock (talk) 03:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Referrences that might help the discussion regarding the title[edit]

Hey guys, instead of looking at how various wordings of the title may mislead uninformed readers (which is probably a dead end in the debate since i think uninformed readers may find either title misleading, like I mentioned above), how about we look at the terminology used in crime research? I'm not an expert in criminology so it would be great if someone more knowledgeable could contribute, but just throwing out some references:

  • 2002 paper: studies the correlation between crime and inequality, then shows that the "correlation reflects causation".
  • SSRN paper: paper aims to study causal link between immigration and crime, and starts showing a correlation and then shows the causality.

These would suggest to me that it really doesn't matter that much how the article is titled, as long as it's clear that the article is dealing with both correlation and causation (since a lot of research naturally proves both at the same time). I've also found that both the phrases "causes of crime" and "causes and correlates of crime" a both used extensively, so it's a bit hard to say which term is more popular. Well-restedTalk 03:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the article should briefly make clear the relationship between correlation and causation in order to avoid misunderstanding as well make clear that article discusses both. Personally I think "causes and correlates of crime" is the most correct and clear phrase. Academica Orientalis (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Defining "correlation" versus "cause" clearly in the opening paragraph is essential for this topic, I think. I'd limit the scope to "correlations" (there are tons of research projects/articles concentrating on correlates alone; theories on causes are also incredibly numerous; even debunked causal theories would be an interesting article on its own -- examples like phrenology, etc.). This article isn't clear whether it discusses crime correlates in the United States, or globally, or what else its intended scope is. I suggest splitting the article, make "Causes of criminality" a separate article. I want to begin an article on "Women perpetrators" at some point, so that would be a "child" article of "Causes of criminality", and would also be an appropriate section within such an article...there, that's a good justification. lol OttawaAC (talk) 02:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Separator - discussion of title is above this[edit]

See the earlier section above and make a proper request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Also, your description of the dispute is false, again see the section above.Academica Orientalis (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An rfc Is a perfectly proper way of determining the title and scope of an article. Your statement about what is false is itself false.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Requested moves is the proper procedure for requesting and discussing retitling of articles. Academica Orientalis (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In most traditions of logics repetition of a proposition does not adduce truth value. Now you wouldn't be worried about extra eyes on your work would you?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Refusing to answer an argument does not make it go away. Obviously there are "eyes" at Wikipedia:Requested moves also. Also, your constant ad hominem is getting tiring. Academica Orientalis (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had to remove the {hat} section as it was erasing any discussion below

@Maunus: In 2014, this article was renamed to Statistical correlations of criminal behavior. I thought the original title was better: the literature on this subject mentions "correlates of crime", but not "statistical correlations of criminal behavior". Jarble (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, the statements here are way too positive with just a single citation[edit]

High religious involvement, high importance of religion in one's life, membership in an organized religion, and orthodox religious beliefs are associated with less criminality. Areas with higher religious membership have lower crime rates.

I have seen quite a few studies showing an inverse correlation between secularism and crime. (Somehow typed this backwards) In general I'm finding this article quite concerning as it states correlation very strongly when it has just a single citation given almost across the entire article.

The degree of surety with which something's said doesn't affect its factual content. The article states what its sources show. If the statement no longer reflects all reliable sources, it can be changed to reflect all reliable sources. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is reporting a false equivalency[edit]

The false equivalency is the difference between crime rates based on incarceration and crime rates based on actual crime rates by socioeconomic class. For example many government studies have been done that show that as socioeconomic class goes up illegal drug use goes up among young adults. The problem is that these groups are not targeted and are never charged with a crime therefore the correlations are being misrepresented based on the assumption that incarceration rates by class and race are the same thing as actual crime rates by race and class etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.27.13.2 (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2924306/

http://healthland.time.com/2011/11/07/study-whites-more-likely-to-abuse-drugs-than-blacks/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.27.13.2 (talk) 19:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Required reading![edit]

Bearian (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Significant misrepresentations of correlation between crime and immigration[edit]

I'm sorry, I'm new, not an expert on the topic, and don't know how to handle this. The following are studies and reviews that directly contradict, and in fact reverse, the statement in this article that crime and immigration are correlated. However, the referenced book does indeed present the view mentioned--is this article about that book, or the topic? Failing to include extensive and credentialed research misrepresents this topic, which is of significant public concern and policy.

Could someone take a look and make appropriate edits?

https://www.policefoundation.org/publication/the-role-of-local-police-appendix-d/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256081616_Undocumented_Immigrants_as_Perceived_Criminal_Threat_A_Test_of_the_Minority_Threat_Perspective</ref>

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07418825.2012.659200?journalCode=rjqy20

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/10/15/crime-rises-among-second-generation-immigrants-as-they-assimilate/

https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/does_immigration_increase_crime

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/cacounts/CC_208KBCC.pdf

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1785005

50.253.121.234 (talk) 07:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)Jacob 1/25/16[reply]

Socioeconomic factors[edit]

The section on socioeconomic factors says that criminality correlates with poverty, but cites evidence that it correlates with inequality. Those aren't the same thing. In fact the larger correlation is with inequality, not with socioeconomic status. I'm not aware that it's even been shown that it's the poorer people in an unequal situation who commit the crimes--I've only seen studies that report correlation between inequality and crime rates in geographic or administrative areas. Philgoetz (talk) 01:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 June 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Per Google Ngrams (no results for current title), and Google search (~2 million more results). (closed by non-admin page mover) 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 18:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statistical correlations of criminal behaviour → Correlates of crime – "Statistical correlations of criminal behavior" is not the common name of this article's subject. The literature on this topic mostly uses the phrase "correlates of crime" instead of "statistical correlations of criminal behavior." Jarble (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support, sounds unnatural if you don't have experience in the field, but I guess that would be the right name. Stan traynor (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Correlates_of_crime&oldid=1206798138"