Jump to content

Talk:Driving while black/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Talk

This ridiculous, biased and completely uninformative article should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.214.197 (talk • contribs)

There should be a section on Ridin' Dirty.

Do not merge

Do not merge this with "racial profiling" This topic should be expanded...

futurebird

I agree. This page is having a bit of trouble standing on its own at the moment, but it is much more a candidate to be fleshed out rather than simply merged. One thing though. I always try to critique articles by pretending I have absolutely no prior familiarity with the circumstances/background information. Thus, despites the quotes around crime I feel the first few sentences sound too much like describing an actual crime. Anyway...I'll see if I find time for this article. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 22:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I fleshed it out, and its citations should be secure enough to stand on its own. - Freechild 16:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

I've altered a recent change that made offense into offence because its a predominately American phenomenon. To make the point, I found just over 1,900 google hits on "driving while black" and "united kingdom"; I found just over 30,000 google hits on "driving while black" and "united states". FYI. – Freechild (¡!¡!¡!¡) 01:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"Criticism of the term"

The "Criticism of the term" section simply gives some anecdotal stories and claims that "empirical evidence did not support the claim". Um. Can someone with the book please cite the "empirical evidence" (is it a study, statistics, what?). Why is so much of the section devoted to an anecdote? —Pengo 04:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Too many examples?

I feel the 'in popular culture' section of this article contains an unnecessary number of examples; 12, at current count. It seems to me we only need to demonstrate that the term has been referenced in popular culture, not describe every time it has been used. I would suggest cutting this section down to a much briefer one saying something like 'Driving While Black has been referenced in films and TV shows such as X, Y and Z'. Terraxos (talk) 02:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Implication

I have always the phrase to imply that a black person would be unable to afford a road-worthy vehicle and that therefore the vehicle must be stolen, not because of racial profiling.--Auric (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Er... that is racial profiling. NewkirkPlaza (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Caps?

Shouldn't this article be at "Driving while black", not "Driving While Black?" WP:MOSCAPS. 124.148.222.41 (talk) 06:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, boldly moving it.– Gilliam (talk) 07:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Driving while black. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Summary

"Driving While Black" is word play on the name of an actual crime, "Driving While Barred". Many blacks are barred from driving as they accumulate tickets for various infractions.

DWB can also affect whites who are "Driving with Blacks".


driving while intoxicated, commonly referred to as DWI. Some jurisdictions use the term Driving Under the Influence (DUI); others use Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants (DUII); see "Driving Under the Influence" for other variants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.4.106 (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Driving while black. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Archive 1

"Make of car"

It's possible that this section, although it is interesting, takes up too much space for the content that it beholds. For one, it outlines the anecdotal experience of a producer of The Young Turks, and I think it is important to push against the anecdotal experience of individuals (especially if it was not widely covered - and it seems as though it was only covered by The Young Turks network) when talking about such a large term. I am willing to work to find more compelling examples relating to DWB. Additionally, the statistic needs to be cited from a better source - in fact as of now there is no direct link to this source. It is also unclear whether the source quotes another source or whether the report was done by The Young Turks. As of now, I imagine many people would be uncomfortable using The Young Turks as a reliable source of information, especially if the report was not peer reviewed. Stibbals (talk) 05:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Real examples?

The weight of the article at present seems to make it sound as though this phenomenon were an Urban Legend. This is exacerbated by the enormous Popular Culture section and no real world examples of this happening, just examples of people talking about similar phenomena. The article would be helped by famous examples of this actually happening, as the term did not arise from a vacuum, but from the observation that black drivers were more likely to be pulled over, more likely to be cited for trivial or trumped up offenses without a legitimate reason for the initial stop, and in other ways were at least implied (although overt cases exist where it is indisputable) that they were stopped simply because they were black. Being stopped for being black ine the "wrong neighbourhood" is a subset of this phenomenon. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree - thus it may be worth citing more studies (as there are a wealth of studies done in each state regarding racial inequities amongst policing on the highway) and as you said, more high profile examples. Johnny Cochran is an example of someone who was violently pulled over, as was Henry Louis Gates, a prominent African American Studies scholar who helped bring the term to popular culture. Stibbals (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Generalization?

As of now there is one sentence in this section: "A survey of people's experiences with law enforcement reported that minorities generally have the same perceptions of justice as the majority but very different experiences." I'm not exactly sure if this sentence needs its own section, as I think it would be better added to Origins. I'm not very clear on what generalizations means or what it is referring to. Stibbals (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

DWW (WTF?)

Racial profiling in this manner is not strictly limited to non-caucasions. While living in a small town, I discovered that many white people (in this town) were users of methanphetamine, including the wife of the county sheriff. On numerous occasions, I personally was pulled over for many trivial reasons. The first question asked of me was "do you have any drugs on you?". Naturally, I did not, as I was not a "meth-head". Non-caucasions were harrassed in this town even more than caucasions, but never asked if they were in possession of methanphetamine. I just felt I should inform that racial profiling from white officers can include racial profiling of other caucasions (WTF).

Well said! 199.112.128.15 (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Doesn't sound like the commentator has any suggestions to make this article better. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:55, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Reasons for Redirect

Further information: Talk:Racial profiling § Merger Proposal

The article relies too much on discussion of the variations on "driving while black" to establish the importance of the term itself. In fact, only one source used in the body of the article actually uses the term "driving while black, and that is the student-published Minnesota Law Review. "Driving while black" is a vernacular term for a form of racial profiling, and so while someone should be able to search for the term here, a redirect to "racial profiling" is perfectly adequate coverage that will give the reader plenty of understanding of the term. Otherwise, we could have a different redundant article for every single possible variation - "driving while hispanic", "driving while asian", whathaveyou. And besides, this is Wikipedia, not Urban Dictionary.76.231.150.69 (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

While the guideline does state to be bold, this article is too controversial for you to move without discussion. Aside from that, the guideline regarding notability is more relevant than your arbitrary determination of the term's worthiness for inclusion. The term is popular vernacular that also has a lot of reliable sources supporting its inclusion in WP. • Freechildtalk 02:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
My determination was not "arbitrary" - remember to be civil in discussions. My determination was based on the fact that there was only one source that actually used the term in the article. The rest of the sources focused either on racial profiling or "variations". Even if you loaded up the article with other sources that happened to use the term and mention that it is a form of racial profiling, that's all you'd have - an article saying "Driving while black is a form of racial profiling. Article X says driving while black is a form of racial profiling. So does article Y. So does article Z." The only way anyone has been able to fill out enough text to make this look like a real article is by loading it up with discussion of the variations. This is not a recipe for a balanced article when the "variations", which should be a minor part of the article, becomes the major part of the article. That's why what I said above stands.76.231.150.69 (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
So bring this conversation to an AFD rather than acting unilaterally- let the community decide. • Freechildtalk 15:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
AfD is for deleting articles, not merging or redirect. As a matter of fact, using AfD to propose a merger is discouraged
Furthermore, as AfD policy states:"5.If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider turning the page into a useful redirect to an existing article – something you can do yourself without opening an AfD case.". In the interest of consensus, I have opened a merger discussion per wikipedia merging policy.76.231.150.69 (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I disagree that this page be merged, as it is clearly a notable topic with reliable sources. Please do not merge it again without further contributions from other editors. • Freechildtalk 06:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
You don't get to revert a merge just because you "disagree" with it and make a vague claim about its alleged "clear" notability. The merger was proposed at the top of the driving while black article and in the Racial profiling article's talk pageTalk:Racial_profiling#Merger_Proposal all by the book according to Wikipedia policy. The discussion was up for 18 days, you had plenty of opportunity to participate, and chose not to. If you had read that discussion, you would have seen that another editor did contribute, and agreed with the merge. And no one else weighed in so WP:Silence applies. You are the one in the wrong here for reverting the merge without having participated in the merger proposal discussion.76.231.150.69 (talk) 06:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: MarkyMark162.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Stibbals. Peer reviewers: Nick M-PS489, Newton3254.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer-Review

Peer Review for: Stibbals
Great job adding the "Origins" section to the article, and citing all of the information as well. It was also interesting to see the example of New Jersey that you provided; this really helped to ground my understanding of how and to what degree racial profiling against blacks while driving really occurred. Although the "Generalizations" section was not part of your contribution to the article, it could use some attention. This section should either be eliminated and the information moved to another section, or the section should be expanded enough that "Generalization" is appropriate to be its own section. The section of the article titled "Examples" could also use an update and some re-organization. The most recent example is from 2014, but the sections begins with an example from 2009, and ends with an example from 2002 - consider arranging these examples in chronological order to make the section easier to read, and more helpful to the reader. Overall your contributions sound encyclopedic and add to the value of the article!

--Nick M-PS489 (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

NPOV issues in the criticism section

Reading over the criticism section, I have a few NPOV issue. First, an editorial by Thomas Sowell arguing against the claim of "driving while black" is mentioned by no actual details about what he argues is presented. We should not simply mention that the phrase and concept was criticized but explain what the criticism is.

Secondly, the following sentence is problematic: "Contrary to the implicit claim in the phrase "driving while black" that minorities are unfairly targeted by police while driving, a 2012 study found that black drivers speed more often and more severely than white drivers, and concluded that "citizen risk for specific police behavior is partially attributable to differential behavior prior to the encounter."[45}". Let's start with the overly simplistic definition of "Driving while black" assumed her. While one definition of the phrase is that over black drivers are more disproportionately stopped by cops compared too white drivers,which ignores potential legitimate reasons for such a disparity, that is one definition of the phrase. The other definition is that blacks are disproportionately targeted by cops in areas where there would be less reasons to expect that to be the case, other then as a result of their race and that higher rates of speeding (or other driving violations) among black drivers would not explain. Part of this definition of "Driving while black" argues that black drivers are pulled over far more often for false claims driving violations such as speeding. Thus even if black drivers speed more often then whites as the study claims, that does not excuse cops who falsely claim speeding as justification for pulling over a black driving. It would be an argument against claims of "driving while black" where actually speeding had occurred, so long as speeding violations where equally issued (percentage wise) against white speeders as they where against black speeders. In short, this paragraph has Wikipedia making making an argument that is based on one concept of the phrase "driving while black" and ever then it's an argument I don't think everyone agrees with even in the specific context it's presented. If were going to present this argument we should rephrase it so that it's clear who is making this argument and that's it's not Wikipedia itself.

We now come to the Vice paragraph. Again, it seems to be relying on only one definition of "driving while black" and presented justification for why that would legitimately be the case (i.e. for reasons of it happening most in high crime areas rather then simply due to their race alone). This does not present an explanation though for the argument that black drivers in non-high crime areas are disproportionately stopped more then white drivers. It seems to be making implications about areas outside of Bloomfield, New Jersey, when we don't know from this report just how, if at all, the conclusions of this report might apply to other areas of the countries. It also presents an argument that Bloomfield, New Jersey unfairly targets blacks driver for tickets as money making scheme in ways they don't with white drivers. So it may be true that in Bloomfield, New Jersey, since most blacks live in high crime neighborhoods, their is higher police presence, and thus higher rates of black drivers being pulled over, it suggest greater effort to catch black drivers committing traffic violation vs white drivers. Thus it could be argued that by following black drivers around looking for violations while not doing the same to white drivers, or at least not at the same rate, a higher percentage of white drivers get a pass for traffic violations compared with black drivers. Basically, this report by Vice News and a group from the Seton Hall Law School does not present an argument against the concept of "driving while black" as a whole, only one definition of it and only in city. It seems we are presenting this report as if supports concussions regarding "driving while black" not actually a part of the report.

Finely let me address the Police-Public Contact Survey mentioned. The mention of this survey is not really a criticism of the concept since it's not attributed to any specific critic. Who is arguing that this specific sets of surveys disputes the concept of "driving while black"? If we want to use these surveys to argue against concept in any form, we should quote someone who uses these surveys to argue against the concept of DWB. Just mentioning the surveys risks the possibility of a misapplying statistical data that does not support the claim being made. I think their might be legitimate questions about these survey and how the collected and interpreted the data and whether their are factors that might explain how these statistics while being true don't explain away the "driving while black" concept. It's possible that overall white, blacks, and Latinos are pulled over at the same rates while their still being a higher percentage of black (or other minorities) being pulled for unjustified and racists reasons. Wikipedia should not imply conclusions from these surveys but rather report on what other have concluded from them. --2600:1700:56A0:4680:3D32:1ABA:6C1A:EF69 (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the section is a problem for several reasons. WP:CSECTION, for one. As a start, I've removed the sentence "Contrary to..." since the study says it is "partially attributable" to other factors. This is not the same thing as "contrary", as this implies the other part is about race. Either way, adding a single WP:PRIMARY study for this specific point, with this specific language, violates WP:NPOV.
The Vice paragraph seems too long based on a single source for a single time and place. Also the CSECTION thing. It seems like a reasonable perspective which, perhaps, could be better summarized in a different part of the article, as long as it's made clear it's taken from a single location. The Vice source may not directly support it, but we shouldn't let the article imply that this kind of thing isn't going on in many places. This is not an isolated issue, and many sources document this problem.[1][2] Linking A to C without WP:SYNTHing B will take some work, though. Grayfell (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

"Biking while black" is a clear variation

Should be a paragraph in "Variations", like the rest. I can't copy or paste. I know somebody out there can; will it be you? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Dubious Tag concerning "studies" purported to be used as reference citations

The problem with the use of studies by the ACLU is that first of all the ACLU being a special interest political group implies that their "studies" aren't trustworthy, given that they aren't published in any scientific journal, and aren't clearly peer reviewed. Therefore to the extent that we call the ACLU's data a "study" it is highly dubious. Second of all, in the data calculations section of the refrence for the Florida section,they fail to provide all of the necessary statistical data in order for the findings to be properly subejct to peer review. (no p-values, no control data for whites, etc.). For that reason I will insert the dubious tag with respect to the offending references. 98.178.191.34 (talk) 08:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The ACLU reports are no longer referred to as "studies", which implies peer review. They should be treated like any other primary source. (For instance, the Seton Hall Law School report is also not peer reviewed.) Template:Dubious says that if you think the ACLU's politics make their reports untrustworthy, you should use [unreliable source?]. Wacketeer (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Florida study seems to say Black people are less likely to be ticketed when failing to wear seat belts

The data provided in the article as written shows that Black people are 67% more likely to fail to wear seat belts (14.2% vs 8.5%), but only 63% (22 vs 13.5) more likely to be cited.

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Driving_while_black/Archive_1&oldid=1261710573"