Talk:IC codes

message: Textbot 23:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mostly, however, it is occasionally useful for the odd party animal who's so wrapped up in costume and makeup that you really can't tell what 'race' they are. It's distinct from IC0 which would normally be someone who wasn't clearly seen. It comes from the primary use of the IC codes; ie quickly disregarding most bystanders because they don't fit the code. 86.0.255.130 (talk) 12:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

text: I'd guess 'IC2', since Latin American people could be described as looking 'Mediterranean'. 
124.168.53.208 (talk) 01:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not really. For now, it seems most Latin American immigrants to the UK come from wealthier origins, including middle-class Argentines and Brazilians. These Latin Americans are usually European in their heritage, derived predominantly from the Mediterranean, Iberian nations that colonized the lands of their birth. In this case, you would be correct that many Britons of Latin American origin could be identified as 'IC2'. The majority of Latin America itself does not fit this bill, however. Of course, many Cubans, Dominicans, and Brazilians would easily match the appearance of 'IC3' - African and Afro-Caribbean. What about a Mexican mestizo, however? How about a Quiche Maya from Guatemala, or an Aymara from Bolivia? In most Latin American counties, the majority of the population has a significant degree of indigenous, Amerindian heritage. Although they were colonized by the Spanish, adopting Spanish Catholic religion, language, and naming practices, they maintain their original appearance. The real question is, what IC code fits for those with an Amerindian appearance? None of the IC codes work to describe a Cherokee from the United States, a Cree from Canada, or the average campesino from the highlands of Peru and Ecuador. --98.114.176.218 (talk) 05:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: For a south American with a heavy mix of caucasian and native...yes. Things would be tricky. No clue what the police would do (funny mental image of those Peruvian pipe players you get in every town centre on teh run...).
A US/Canadian native american who looks the standard part though would firmly fall under the east/south east asian category though I'd imagine.
IC codes arent a hard and fast rule. Just quick short hand amongst police. If soomeone is hard to describe they would just haave to use a bit more than a quick 'ic3'  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.150.3.19 (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Anyone able to link to articles describining the practices of other police forces? Or able to help create such articles, eg for the US?CecilWard (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Police other than in Britain  

message: "[…] codes used by the British police in radio communications to describe the apparent ethnicity of a suspect", says the first sentence.
But the Ethnic group article says that ethnicity is "based on similarities such as common ancestry, language, history, society, culture or nation".  And since the police presumably (in the general case) have no information about suspect's language, history, society, culture or nationality prior to "spoken contact" (other than a guess based upon his or her apparent "common ancestry"), it looks very much as if "ethnicity", in this case, is just an inaccurate weasel word for "race".
In which case, surely "race" is what the article should say?
Paul Magnussen (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Ethnicity is just the current euphemism for race.  Although I don't have sources, and this seems to be missing from the article, the I was originally R for race, but was changed to I for identification, to reflect that these were subjective descriptions. -- 81.187.250.219 (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnicity, or race?