Talk:List of countries by incarceration rate/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Removed File:Incarceration Rate by Sex and Country.svg. Male rates are incorrect

commons:File:Incarceration Rate by Sex and Country.svg

The male rates are currently incorrect. The female rates are correct. They are from the 2018 source that lists rates per million females.

Acquiring the male rates per million males would be hugely time consuming.

For much more info see:

• commons:File talk:Incarceration Rate by Sex and Country.svg

--Timeshifter (talk) 13:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

The rates quoted by the source are not per million females--they're not even per million adults of legal age--they're per million people (of all ages and genders). Hence why it's perfectly fine to subtract the female rate from the total rate to get the male rate, and you said so yourself:

Looking at your female data on your chart I see that is where you got your numbers from. Which is fine.

Why did you remove it then? — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 (talk) 08:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

The female data is correct. Because it looks like you copied it from the rightmost column of the table in the source appendix. Then you converted it to 'per million' You should use per 100,000.

See the section farther down about using incarceration rates per 100,000.

There are many scholarly articles comparing incarceration rates between countries, states, etc.. They almost all use per 100,000. Here is a table from one of those scholarly articles that compares US states to other countries:

commons:File:Female incarceration rates by country and US state.gif

Its source table data is per 100,000:

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/global/appendix_2018.html

It is the same source table you must have used.

But your male rates are completely wrong, and your method for calculating them are completely wrong. I go in detail on the talk page:

commons:File talk:Incarceration Rate by Sex and Country.svg

To get the male rates you would have to go through every country page on the World Prison Brief. You would have to subtract the females from the number of people incarcerated. Then calculate the male incarceration rate per million males. You would have to look up the male population of each country for the data year. It is not on WPB. All of this would take a long time.

But if you changed the chart to just female rates per 100,000 females it would be a great chart used in multiple articles on Wikipedia. You don't have to do any calculations. Just copy the data from the appendix:

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/global/appendix_2018.html

--Timeshifter (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Then calculate the male incarceration rate per million males.

Ok, I'll say it again: The rates quoted by the source are not per million females--they're not even per million adults of legal age--they're per million people (of all ages and genders):

Figure 1. This graph shows the number of women in state prisons, local jails, and federal prisons from each U.S. state per 100,000 people in that state and the incarceration rate per 100,000 in all countries with at least a half million in total population.

References

— 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 (talk) 04:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

For the US your chart currently says 1330 females incarcerated per million. That number is from the PPI report. That is 133 females per 100,000.

The Prison Policy Initiative (PPI) appendix says 218,106 female prisoners using 2015 and 2016 data. It also says 163,492,599 total female population of all ages. For a timeline of total US population see the top of this Google search page:

https://www.google.com/search?q=total+population+of+us+in+2016 - around 321 million people (both sexes) in 2015.

Doing the math produces the PPI number of 133 females per 100,000 females of all ages.

(218,106 divided by 163,492,599). Multiply that by 100,000 to get 133 per 100,000.

The latest US data from WPB says 64 females per 100,000. It also says there were 207,190 female prisoners in 2016. So they are obviously providing the incarceration rate of females per 100,000 population of all ages of both sexes.

(207,190 divided by 321,000,000). Multiply that by 100,000 to get around 64 per 100,000.

--Timeshifter (talk) 02:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I see it now. The 133 was from the chart you had previously copied. I had understood the source's caption to mean that all incarceration rates there were per 100,000 people (of all sexes and ages), not only the ones of US states. What they did there rendered their comparison of female incarceration in US states and in countries completely useless, as they're quoted in different bases. So, in fact, the female rates are not correct,^[1] and this has nothing to do with my method for calculating the male rates.^[2]

I have thus updated the chart accordingly, and reintroduced it. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

(unindent). Your numbers are incorrect. So I removed the chart from the article. For some countries you are comparing apples and oranges by not using the same year for both the female rate and the overall rate. And you made some copying errors.

I looked at some countries. I see that WPB had 2021 data for Thailand and El Salvador. Both for the female incarceration rate and the overall incarceration rate. So you could subtract the female rate from the overall rate to get the male rate. All rates are per 100,000 population of both sexes. So since you were calculating from the latest rates, and they were from the same year, you had accurate data on your chart for those 2 countries.

But for the US WPB only has 2016 data for the female incarceration rate. That means you have to find the 2016 overall rate in order to get an accurate result. The WPB has the female rate at 64 per 100,000 for 2016. You used 63 per 100,000. WPB has the 2016 overall rate at 655. Subtracting 64 from that gives 591 per 100,000 for the male rate. You had 576 on your chart. So you used a lower overall rate. You used the most recent overall rate of 639 per 100,000. Here is the math you used: 639-63=576.

• https://www.prisonstudies.org/country/united-states-america#basic_data
• https://www.prisonstudies.org/country/united-states-america#further_info

You made the same mistake for Rwanda. And you used the wrong female rate. Your chart has the female rate at 38 per 100,000. WPB has 36 per 100,000 for 2017.

• https://www.prisonstudies.org/country/rwanda#basic_data
• https://www.prisonstudies.org/country/rwanda#further_info

So finding the same year for each country for both rates would require a lot of work. And you need a year column for those rates. So people aren't confused by making the same mistake you did.

As I said earlier, I think we should go with just the female rates. Copying the female rates may be tedious, but it is a lot less time consuming than getting the male rates with matching years.

The problem will be maintenance a year from now. Even with just the female rates. Who wants to have to go to over 200 country pages and individually copy the latest female rates of incarceration. That is why there must be a year column with the female rates. Then people will not be deluded in thinking the female rates overall are as recent as the rest of the WPB data.

You already copied all the female rates per 100,000 females. From this source:

• https://www.prisonpolicy.org/global/women/2018.html

So I suggest using that.

That would be easy since it is already done. Here is that version of your chart:

• https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/2/2a/20210511031720%21Incarceration_Rate_by_Sex_and_Country.svg

You just need to convert it to per 100,000. It is basically the same chart as this but without the states:

• https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Female_incarceration_rates_by_country_and_US_state.gif

I think your female rate chart would then be used in multiple articles. If you want to tediously do a separate male rate chart later, that is fine.

I think the source will redo the female rate chart every few years. When that happens we just copy the data. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

You made the same mistake for Rwanda. And you used the wrong female rate.

I didn't, actually; I used the female pct and the total rate. Same for male rates.

Your chart has the female rate at 38 per 100,000. WPB has 36 per 100,000 for 2017

Apples and oranges; the 38 is for 2019, as is the year for Rwanda's total rate.

The chart is correct; it's the table that needs updating to reflect the latest data. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

WPB only has female data up to 2017 for Rwanda. See here:

https://www.prisonstudies.org/country/rwanda#further_info

WPB has total rate for Rwanda for 2019.

You can't use 2017 female percentage with 2019 total rate.

Percentages change over time as can be seen in the Rwanda female data table.

Also, note this in the female rates section for all WPB country pages:

"(If the rate were calculated on the basis of the number of females in the national population it would of course be approximately double the figure in the final column)."

In 2013 the Rwanda rate of female incarceration per 100,000 is listed as 29.6. Double that and you get around the same number used here:

commons:File:Female incarceration rates by country and US state.gif

--Timeshifter (talk) 01:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The tiny cross link is almost impossible to click on a cell phone

Guarapiranga. Concerning this version of the table.

Is there a way to change the tiny cross link to something like [Link]?

Similar to the [Note] links here:

• https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=NCAA_Division_I_FBS_football_win-loss_records_in_the_2010s&oldid=1024639069

--Timeshifter (talk) 10:16, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Australia

Please put info at Immigration detention in Australia and at Punishment in Australia. There is more room for balanced WP:NPOV discussion there.

Here is the shortened version just below:

In addition to the numbers referenced in the main table, see info about additional detainees, and alleged detainees, at Immigration detention in Australia and Punishment in Australia.

References

Here is the section as it was just before it was shortened to the above info:

Further information: Immigration detention in Australia and Punishment in Australia As of September quarter 2020: "The average daily imprisonment rate was 205 persons, down from 210 persons per 100,000 adult population in the June quarter 2020." In addition to its standard prisons, Australia also operates a separate system of immigration prisons to detain foreigners who have breached the terms of, or lack a visa. Some of these immigration detention centres are used to indefinitely detain illegal immigrants, asylum seekers, and refugees, including children, often without trial, sometimes for several years. Immigration detainees are not included in the data for prison population and incarceration rates. Additionally, the number of prisoners and incarceration rate differs for each Australian state and territory, with some having much higher or lower incarceration rates than the national average. In addition to adult prisoners, on an average night in June 2017, there was 964 minors imprisoned in Australia.

References

Some of the above info could be integrated into Immigration detention in Australia and Punishment in Australia. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

North Korea

Please put info at Prisons in North Korea. There is more room for balanced WP:NPOV discussion there.

Here is the shortened version just below:

World Prison Brief has limited info on North Korea. See info about detainees, and alleged detainees, at Prisons in North Korea.

References

Here is the section as it was just before it was shortened to the above info:

Main article: Prisons in North Korea Little information exists regarding North Korea's incarceration rate. World Prison Brief has limited info. In 2012, the U.S. Committee for Human Rights in North Korea estimated 150,000 to 200,000 are incarcerated, based on testimonies of defectors from the state police bureau, which roughly equals 600–800 people incarcerated per 100,000. For more information, see Prisons in North Korea.

References

Some of the above info could be integrated into Prisons in North Korea. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Tables have been fully updated

See: User:Timeshifter/Sandbox137. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok then. KirkburnFandom (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a date. The map shows Russia with a rate of 400+ but it is 331 in the table. Keith McClary (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Keith McClary. If you click on the map and expand it, then you will see "2018". So the map data is older than the table data. Russia had a higher incarceration rate in the past. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

"Only World Prison Brief figures are used in this article", ...

... say Timeshifter^[1] and Thegoodguy3221.^[2]

Why should they?

Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. (WP:NPOV)

— Guarapiranga ☎ 23:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The article is called List of countries by incarceration rate. The main table caption says that the source is World Prison Brief. So the limitation is in the focus of the table.

If you want to use other sources then I suggest starting another table. But I will not be maintaining it. If you start it, then you need to maintain it. Good luck with that. You will soon learn why the regular editors are not interested.

If that new table is not maintained, then I will ask the other editors to spin it off to another separate list article. It will soon be deleted at "Articles for Deletion" if it is not maintained.

Using a single source for each table is common in many articles for all the above reasons.

And about neutrality, I don't see any lack of neutrality on the part of World Prison Brief. They are a long respected organization.

And using a single source that is vetting the data according to their own consistent rules is more reliable for comparison purposes. That means we editors don't have to vet hundreds of sources for hundreds of countries. People have tried concerning various country lists, and it can easily be a nightmare. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

1. The article is called List of countries by incarceration rate.
   Precisely. No specification of source whatsoever.
2. The main table caption says that the source is World Prison Brief. So the limitation is in the focus of the table.
   Changing a caption is no "limitation" at all.
3. If you want to use other sources then I suggest starting another table.
   There's no reason why both data can't coexist on the same table. Different sources coexist on the same table at List of countries and dependencies by area, List of countries by GDP (nominal), List of countries by GDP (PPP), List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita, List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita... In fact, it is preferable that they do, so readers can easily compare them.
4. But I will not be maintaining it.
   No one asked you to.
5. If you start it, then you need to maintain it.
   Where did you pull that policy from??
6. If that new table is not maintained, then I will ask the other editors to spin it off to another separate list article. It will soon be deleted at "Articles for Deletion" if it is not maintained.
   Sounds like to me you see yourself as the owner of this article (call it "maintainer" if you like), and are willing to wp:game the system to have your way with it (rather than working collaboratively by policy and consensus).
7. Using a single source for each table is common in many articles for all the above reasons.
   Common but not required. What is required is that data and viewpoints from all reliable sources be accurately, verifiably and proportionately represented.
8. And about neutrality, I don't see any lack of neutrality on the part of World Prison Brief.
   WP:Neutrality is not about neutrality of the sources—no source is neutral! Rather it requires that Wikipedia be neutral in relation to its sources (which, again, means representing them all accurately, verifiably and proportionately).
9. And using a single source that is vetting the data according to their own consistent rules is more reliable for comparison purposes.
   Censoring reliable sources is consistently biased; a breach of WP:NPOV.
10. That means we editors don't have to vet hundreds of sources for hundreds of countries.
    Editors do it everyday at List of countries and dependencies by population, for instance.
11. People have tried concerning various country lists, and it can easily be a nightmare.
    Again, no one asked you to.

— Guarapiranga ☎ 01:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose using other sources in this article. I don't want to waste time arguing with you,and wikilawyering. As evidenced on your talk page, and many other talk pages, you spend a lot of time doing that.

If you want to start another incarceration rate list page using multiple sources feel free to do so. There is no reason that table needs to be in this article, and I oppose it.

That other article can be linked from this article. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I understand you oppose accurately and proportionately representing all reliable sources in this article. That's contrary to WP:NPOV. Call it wikilawyering if you like, but all editors are bound by WP:POLICY.
There is no reason that table needs to be in this article, and I oppose it.
Yes, there is: WP:NEUTRALITY:

Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.

If you want to start another incarceration rate list page using multiple sources feel free to do so.
You're acting like you own this article. Let me assure you: you don't. WMF does. — Guarapiranga ☎ 05:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

As usual you in your many wikilawyering posts you ignore what others say, and misrepresent what they say. Many people have pointed this out to you. Go back and read my previous replies. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)