Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. 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
Biosocial criminology is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Misplaced Pages. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology
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 Misplaced Pages. 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
A fact from Biosocial criminology appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 April 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Taking the example of the Cinderella effect neither the arguments for or against are presented. They are discussed in the main article on that subject. A brief summary referring to other articles are common in Misplaced Pages. Academica Orientalis (talk) 00:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
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)
I you have not read them you do not know if they contain significant criticisms. If you are arguing that there are NPOV problem then burden is on you to show that.Academica Orientalis (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Look, your own article stated that "there has been criticism", "others have criticized" etc. You just didn't have the common decency to actually describe the content of the criticism or to provide the reader with names or titles. That means that I had to google to find some (since I don't have access to the source you used to write this article, and you have already shown yourself to be unwilling to provide the relevant quotes form that material anyway). You have written a onesided piece of advocacy and now you try to make it look as if there is no criticism, even when faced with titles. Honestly it sucks to argue with you.·ʍaunus·snunɐw·01:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Again, Googling some titles without reading them and the claiming there are problems is of course no acceptable. Please answer my statement regarding the Cinderella effect above. Neither the arguments for and against are discussed here but in the main article on this which is linked to. Obviously we cannot here duplicate this long article. Academica Orientalis (talk) 01:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
No that would be despiccable - so its good I first claimed there was problems and then googled the sources when you refused to provide any.·ʍaunus·snunɐw·01:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
You have stated that you have not read the sources you claim show problems with this article: . Please respond to my argument regarding the Cinderella effect I stated in may last reply. Academica Orientalis (talk) 02:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
No I have not claimed the sources I have presented show problems with the article. The article shows problems in that it mentions the existence of criticism but does not substantiate it or provide citations to it. I provided you with the sources so that you can read them and fix that problem. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·02:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
If you have not read your own claimed sources, then you cannot claim they fix anything. You again avoided answering my point that in the case of the Cinderella effect there is a whole separate and long article discussing the issue which cannot be duplicated here. Thus neither the arguments for or against are mentioned but the main article referred to. Academica Orientalis (talk) 02:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Well you are right that I can't promise that if you read them you will be able to tfix the POV problemss with the article, but that is a little much to ask I think, afterall I did google them for you when you in turn were being less than helpful. Take a chance and read them you may learn something you didn't know. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·02:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
