This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Crime in New Zealand article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
I tried to get the intro readable at least, but it's hard to improve it any further given the standard of the rest of the article.--Gueux de mer (talk) 08:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
This article is rated as a high importance New Zealand article. However, at the start of 2019 this article is turning into a mess as it is poorly structured, with no thought being given to what it should contain or how it should be structured. The article lead talks about measuring crime statistics but says nothing about the crime being counted. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Or should the page become Crime statistics in New Zealand? Anyway, below is a straw-man for the broad subject areas I think should be covered; feel free to modify as you think fit. - 210.86.82.145 (talk) 06:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
There is a list of "Notable crimes and criminals". If this is to be kept (rather than relying on categories), it would be good to have criteria for what should be included. All crimes and criminals that have articles are notable (in theory) but the list should be reserved for particularly notable ones, with the rest accessible via categories. Obviously mass murders would be in. I think that particularly controversial cases should be included. I can think of a couple of controversial who-done-it double murders that are not included. On the other hand some of the 21st century ones are single homicides, while horrific, not especially controversial - this is just recentism, in my opinion. Perhaps it should be required that each entry have a brief phrase that indicates why it is particularly notable - if we can't come up with such a justification, leave the entry out. Or should we delete the list and rely on categories? Thoughts? Nurg (talk) 05:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
The list is of very little use. Now that I have added significantly to the prose, I propose to delete the entire list. Any objections?Offender9000 (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
This section seems to include material which discusses a number of ideas that were proposed by political parties - but were never followed through on. Therefore are irrelevant to this article.
There is also evidence of editorialising in this section. After checking the references provided for some of the sentences, there are claims made that are not supported, plus the fact that the system was 'changed' rather than scrapped isn't described. There are also clear cases of choosing of supporting material to push one point of view - e.g. a whole paragraph focusing on the problems with new legalisation etc. I have removed this material. Clarke43 (talk) 20:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I did. Because they are being used to support one POV. This article is effectively a Coat-rack style article. His is one view on legislation - nothing about sentencing, hence why it can go. Clarke43 (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Crime in New Zealand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Crime in New Zealand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Since July 2014, Police have been publish monthly statistical data as on-line open data about offender proceedings and victimisations, rather than publishing recorded offence statistics in formal reports. The different statistical collections are not comparable and interpreting them, especially across the transition period, probably constitutes original research. Rather than creating statistical tables in Wikipedia, the article will need to refer readers to the sources of this open data, which can be found at policedata.nz, instead of being found in a published report with commentary and analysis that can be quoted. For commentary, editors will need to find separate sources where crime trends have been interpreted, such as crime statistics publications from the Police, news media reports, briefing papers or fact sheets that are publicly available. Meanwhile, the existing tables cannot be updated as the statistical collection has been retired, so should they probably be removed because they will become more misleading as they get more out of date. - 210.86.82.145 (talk) 04:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
The crime rates per 10,000 population in the statistical tables headed "New Zealand recorded crime rates, 1994–2014 calendar years" and "New Zealand recorded crime statistics for years ending 31 December 2012–14, by ANZSOC category" have been computed by combining population estimates from a Statistics New Zealand population source with Crime counts from Police data published in a different source by Statistics New Zealand. From reading the Manual of Style, I understand that performing the rate calculation is probably improper synthesis that constitutes original research, because information from 2 different sources has been combined to produce something new that does not appear in either source.
The Police data source report for the second table, New Zealand Crime Statistics 2014, has its own set of population estimates on page 24 and these differ from the cited Statistics New Zealand population source by about 500 or so for each year. There is also a separate population table that accompanies the New Zealand recorded crime rates data from Statistics New Zealand, but you have to read through the accompanying, and now archived, table metadata and usage instructions to find it and use it.
The first table can be salvaged by changing the source to be the same as the second table and using the data on pages 13 and 24, but this requires omitting the years 1994 and 1995 and enlarging the crime rate figures to have one decimal place. The second table can be salvaged by omitting the year 2012 and reducing the crime rate figures to only one decimal place, as the rates for 2013 and 2014 are published in the tables on pages 6 to 11 with one decimal place. That would mean no calculations need be performed and there is no copyright violation because the tables are formatted differently, but with the same facts.
However, in the long run it is questionable if having these 2 tables really add value to the article. These table are produced from statistical collections that were retired after they were published in April 2015. They were replaced by monthly victim and offender statistics that are not comparable with the historic collections. This means any new statistical tables will need to rely on sources that analyse the new statistics. So far, nobody seems to be producing any overall analysis of these new statistical collections, as Police have stopped publishing their crime statistics reports and now just publish the open data on-line, so anyone can download and analyse it. In order to replicate these tables in the future some one is going to have to do the research and analysis to produce the equivalent tables.
But would performing calculations like that, by using the raw data as a basis for additional calculations, be considered original research - especially if done by a Wikipedia editor exclusively for this article? And would any analysis of the data, like describing any increases or decreases, be original research as that would be interpreting the data, rather than just reporting the analysis by an independent source ? What if the analysis was inappropriately interpreted, because of a lack of knowledge of what issues has affected the data? - 210.86.82.145 (talk) 11:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
There is an important difference between Reported and Recorded Crime Statistics. Up until 2014, NZ Police published Recorded Crime Statistics which are counted after after Police have investigated a report of crime and determined one had occurred. The crime is counted on the day it occurs. If crime is reported more than 14 days after the end of the counting period it is not counted. From 2014, Police have counted Recorded Crime in their statistics, which means all reports of crime are counted based on the day they are reported to Police, this means crime reports that Police discount as "No Crime" are still counted in the statistical collections but are normally excluded from Victimisation or Recorded counts but can be seen in Demand reports. The report The transformation of NZ Police crime statistics: New measures and trends explains the statistical issues in more detail. While the report Data Recording and Quality Assurance gives details about the crime recording process. What this means is that calling New Zealand Police Crime Statistics Reported crime is not appropriate for statistics prior to July 2014. The official statistical documents all refer to Recorded crime (or offences). From July 2014, the statistics do not count "crime" instead they count people, such as victims victimised and offenders proceeded against, but these are counted based on the date of the event that caused recording, not the date the crime occurred. Police cannot count something that hasn't been reported to them or they haven't detected. Some victims surveys have suggested only a third of crime is reported to Police and only half of what is reported appears to be recorded as crime, especially prior to 2014. This under-reporting phenomenon is sometimes referred to as The Dark Figure of Crime. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 08:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Would crime before European colonisation be within the scope of this article? New Zealand as a country did not exist then, but of course the landmass and civilisation existed and the term 'New Zealand' is often used to refer to the landmass as opposed to the state. Any thoughts? - Philipp.governale (talk) 10:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/crime/news/article.cfm?c_id=30&objectid=10850418 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10851555 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10804026. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Sennecaster (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)