Talk:Immigration and crime

Wiki Education assignment: Adding Immigrants Quantitative Sources for Latinx Immigration History

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Estanley25 (article contribs).

Primary sources and synthesis

@Zilch-nada, the article before my bold edits that you have attempted to revert, was using lots of improper WP:synthesis of primary sources to make broad arguments.
Instead, I replaced (or flagged) those primary sources (which were not necessarily reliable sources that were also not as current as would be ideal) with secondary WP:Reliable sources that make more global claims and are more WP:verifiable.
I am really confused as to what the disagreement is about and extremely confident in the edits I made. Can you be more specific as to what your issues are with these edits? Superb Owl (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

For instance, the source of Cormier states that immigrants are less like to commit crimes in just about every country. Whereas, we have country-by-country sources showing immigrants committing more crime. It is not SYNTHESIS to doubt the former; there is an outright contradiction in sources.

A says: Just about no countries.

B, C, D, and so on: examples of countries that do - that is a direct, not indirect, negation.

My reverting was because you substantially changed every and all substance of the notion of a mixed relationship, and replaced them with describing them as having no relationship. That is an incredibly substantial different article, you must admit?

I am doubtful of most of the current wording. I think at least Cormier's source should be removed, at least in lede via WEIGHT. Zilch-nada (talk) 12:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Zilch-nada, which countries have reliable secondary sources (such as meta-analyses) saying that immigration increases crime? When I found this article it cited maybe 2 primary sources from 2 different countries from 20 years ago that showed some correlation, not causation. That certainly should not be in the lead, and certainly not synthesized to make any broader claims outside of those studies.
Cormier is a secondary source. I agree it would be helpful to see what he is referencing more specifically and will add that. I can keep finding more secondary sources, but have not found one so far that claims a significant link between the two despite the suggestion made by this article or specific sections in it (e.g. Sweden, Denmark and waiting for verification of Finland, the other country cited in the former lead that was being used to make a claim that so far has not held up well). Superb Owl (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The individual sources of countries, such as Sweden, etc., indicate higher rates of crime. Now, I understand that it is wrong to extrapolate - synthesise - that Europe as a whole is like that - or indeed any causation; of course I understand that. But this article puts particular and excessive emphasis, for example, on the United States in the lede. There are nearly 200 countries, and 10s if not 100s of millions of immigrants globally. Why then does this article emphasise in the lede that the United States of all countries shows no relationship? So my idea would be not to refer to any one country in particular unless other countries are mentioned. It seems very US-centric just to include the US. Zilch-nada (talk) 17:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The U.S. has the most reliable data and so is given more prominence in the lead. If you have great meta-analyses and secondary sources of Europe (similar population size to US) then that would deserve equal weight in my opinion.

You still need to prove that Sweden indicates higher rates of crime since the only secondary source I have found says it does not. I am reverting the last 4 edits, which all appear POV. If you have reliable sources that I am not seeing, then yes, we can make some of the changes that have been made but otherwise it is not supported by the evidence. Superb Owl (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

You clearly haven't seen my edits then. Some were simple reordering. Zilch-nada (talk) 17:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence/paragraph of a long section like Sweden was a good recent reliable summary of the data. That should go first.
I have not had time to sift through all the sources below it, but the ones I have made it to have not all been reliable or reliably summarized. I can do that now as it clearly needs some work as has much of this article Superb Owl (talk) 17:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

No, Lindberg describes the general discourse and states that it's wrong (without much elaboration), whereas the next sentences describes the actual meat of the article; "Those with immigrant background are over-represented in Swedish crime statistics". That's much more of a summary. Zilch-nada (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Uh... Those with immigrant background are over-represented in Swedish crime statistics. Research shows that socioeconomic factors, such as unemployment, poverty, exclusion language, and other skills explain most of difference in crime rates between immigrants and natives.

Immigrants are over-represented, as described in these sources = higher rates of crime among immigrants. Also, that is an important distinction. We need to distinguish between immigration's effect on the overall crime rate with the rates of crime associated with immigrants. Both evidently appear to be relevant. Zilch-nada (talk) 17:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Correlation does not equal causation. Causation studies are more relevant than correlation studies. They should have priority, especially when correlation is often used to imply causation Superb Owl (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)