Template:Did you know nominations/Crime in Harlem

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Allen3 ^talk 18:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Insufficient progress toward resolving outstanding issues

Crime in Harlem

(

)

... that cheap crack cocaine, which became a major issue in the 1980s, has been cited as being "largely responsible for the devaluation of human life " in East Harlem (pictured)?

Created by Dr. Blofeld (talk), Nvvchar (talk), Rosiestep (talk). Nominated by Dr. Blofeld (talk) at 17:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC).

Reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Louis Duret

I'm very sorry, given the three talented editors who worked together on this, but I have some serious problems with allowing this article to be linked from the Main Page. It's not just the prose (use of Commonwealth spellings for a US topic, use of both "percent" and the symbol) or the uncited passages (""Major riots broke out in Harlem in 1964, violently suppressed by the police" and "East Harlem has the highest violent crime rate in Manhattan" cannot go without a footnote). But they're part of it.

It's the overall sensibility of this article. First, I notice it comes as part of a wave of "Crime in ..." articles nominated here. But all the other places are countries, actual sovereign states. I'm aware we have some other articles that focus on crime in cities, like New York as a whole, London, Mumbai and Toronto. But are there any other articles that focus on crime in a particular neighborhood of any city? Do we have Crime in Jackson Heights, Queens, Crime in Greenwich Village, Crime in Riverdale, Bronx, or, for that matter, Crime in St. John's Wood or Crime in Tsim Sha Tsui (which might be nice to have before Wikimania this year)? One would forgive a Harlemite from wondering why they were singled out. I'm not saying that this isn't a worthy subject for an article, just that it seems a little strange for it to be the first "Crime in ..." about an urban neighborhood.

The lead image could be better chosen. Harlem, as the map underneath it demonstrates, is a small part of that image and not in the foreground. It's actually a better image to illustrate Hudson Heights or Inwood, both of which are more visible. We do not need to perpetuate the belief that everything north of 110th Street is Harlem. Upper Manhattan is a lot more complex than that.

To begin the next, and most serious complaint of mine, let me disclose my relevant personal experience. Living about 70 miles (110 km) north of New York City, I often take the train to the city for various reasons, including but not limited to Wikimedia-NYC events. This often entails getting off at 125th Street and walking a block to the subway station. Some other white people actually think I'm crazy for doing this, though I'm hardly the only white person who does. I know it's not the most representative block of Harlem, but it is in Harlem, and I've never had any problems doing it, even late in the evening.

In light of all this I find this article ... well, let me not mince words ... racially insensitive as it stands. I certainly do not think it was your intent to produce something that would read this way; you're all better editors than that. But while Harlem's place in African-American culture and history cannot be denied, this article seems to focus on it as a black neighborhood to an almost obsessive degree, far more than even that history would warrant.

This leads to some really hard-to-swallow sentences like "Harlem is also known as the “Mecca of New Negro” where a resurgence of their culture has emerged," (in the intro, yet) that sound like they would be a lot more at home in a 1913 encyclopedia than a 2013 one (Not in the least because it's conflating about a century of history). And then, "The law enforcement in Harlem is generally the responsibility of the blacks and white police men are even told that 'If you white people insist on coming up to Harlem where you force coloured people in vice-and crime -ridden slums, its my job to see that you are safe'" I know it's cited and includes quoted material but really ... no comment.

There are also some, uh, intuitive leaps in the text. The quote in the text box? Do we know it came from a gang member in Harlem? It doesn't say. And the music section, right after telling us that a lot of rappers were in gangs, gives as an example a group that takes its name from ... the Harlem Six, who the article immediately goes on to tell us were a group of men possibly wrongly accused of crimes almost 50 years ago, and does not claim were a gang. So, how do we know that a lot of Harlem rappers were once in gangs? Really, in fact, the whole music section is a stretch.

I would support a much-better written article, possibly, for DYK. But right now, this article could be a huge embarrassment to us. It just plays into far too many stereotypes. Daniel Case (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

"Huge embarrassment" is rather exaggerated don't you think? Harlem is world-renowned for crime, that is why I felt that an article on it would be useful. We're not censored, can't be helped if it is a "sensitive" subject for some. I've reread the article and removed some of the sentences added after I wrote it but I certainly don't see a strong anti-black sentiment in it. It merely says that young black male juvenile is the most common cause of crime and that's sourced and true. The article is neutral and only mentioned blacks and crime very briefly. Much of it discusses general history, the problem of drugs and community response rather than focusing on "blacks cause all the crime". Rap culture glamorizes violence and crime in New York. Many rappers were in gangs and involved with crime in their youth. 50 cent for instance was a teenage drug dealer. To censor the fact that Harlem is a predominantly black area with above average crime rates for the US would be wrong. I suggest a more moderate individual (and somebody who is less obviously implicated with Harlem in real life) reads this article and makes a more sensible review.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Weeeellll ... I'm sort of amused that infrequently walking one block in Harlem makes me too "implicated" to review the article correctly. Harlem does indeed have a reputation for crime, but I would rather walk a street there than in say, Soundview. However I think it can be written about in a much less race-obsessed fashion.

Since I have a lot of respect for your contributions otherwise, I will endorse your request for a de novo review. But don't say I didn't warn you. Daniel Case (talk) 02:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a start on the history of crime in Harlem, 1900–1970s. We agree with Daniel Case that it suffers from certain perspective issues. "Crime" is already rather difficult topic to cover neutrally, given that the term refers both to behaviors and to the social interpretation of these behaviors.

What is a gang? Is a gang inherently criminal? Do gangs participate in community policing? Are transgressions against gangs considered crimes?
Crack. Okay. Where does it come from? Why is it illegal? How does crack addiction relate to crime? How do disproportionate crack sentencing laws fit in? How does media coverage fit in?
The process of criminalization is a necessary aspect of crime. Relatedly, the dynamics of black policing and the relationship of black community policing to the NYPD is worth discussing in the article... we thought the deleted bit on this was interesting and might be explored further.
Are there white (collar) criminals in Harlem? Was there crime in Harlem back when it was "sophisticated"?
Um. "Although young black male delinquents are often the most common offenders in Harlem, the neighborhood also has its share of 'predatory women' and 'criminal parasites'." We don't know what is meant by "delinquents", "predatory", or "parasites" here. This language seems loaded.
And, oh wow, this whole paragraph:

Since New York City's revival in the late 20th century, Harlem has been experiencing social and economic gentrification. However, Harlem still suffers from many social problems. Large portions of the population receive a form of income support from the government—with West, Central, and East Harlem respectively at 34.9%, 43.3%, and 46.5% of the population.

Do the article's authors recognize that there are problematic assumptions here?

Including the Harlem 6 is cool but it's sort of weird to have their picture next to that lead sentence about the relationship between music and gangs... actually, it's a little ironic, given that they take their name from a group of "wrongfully accused" people. One wonders whether people implicated by the "criminal justice system" are to be called "criminals" and associated with "criminality" regardless of their actions.
The article should probably contain more information about the situation in Harlem today. Surely there are reports and statistics (official and otherwise). One must wonder, also, whether the New York City stop-and-frisk program operates in Harlem.

All in all, it's an important topic and worth researching, and we appreciate all the effort that has been made thus far. We hope the editors working on it now and others will continue to research and improve the article. Love, groupuscule (talk) 05:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

You're a member of the African diaspora and Detention projects, I'd hardly call that neutral reviewing either. As for the article being "race obsessed" Daniel. that's a grossly exaggerated statement and I see little evidence of it; most of the article doesn't even discuss race and crime. Obviously I've stepped upon a controversial delicate topic so I'm going to withdraw this from DYK, please close it, it isn't worth the hassle. We most certainly didn't mean to be racist or degrade black people, rather disappointed Daniel that you would think that.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 07:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Um, excuse you. Interest in a topic does not imply lack of neutrality. Do you use the same standards to disqualify members of WikiProject Biology, WikiProject Military History, or Wikiproject United States? Why do you feel that someone less interested in the perspective of the African diaspora would be a more neutral reviewer for this article?
The concerns raised above represent major issues with the article—they are important regardless of the article's DYK nomination. No one here has said that you meant to be racist or to degrade black people. In fact, no one has accused you of anything. We are offering constructive criticism about your article on a sensitive and complex topic. None of us knows everything, and we all need to learn from each other in order to create a better encyclopedia. groupuscule (talk) 08:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

No edits have been made to the article since July 3, well before the last round of reviews. Given the issues raised, the article clearly cannot be approved as is; given a lack of response after nine days, this nomination will be ended unless some action is taken before the formal closure. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)