Talk:Crime woo/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 1 September 2023. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

WiP

work in progress--BenB (talk) 03:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Aren't all Wiki articles? The Goonie 1 ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 03:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

shut up you you you, meanie logical poopie head. haha i know with 85% certainty that i won that debate!!!!--BenB (talk) 03:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with PFoster that this is in desperate need of some sources... hopefully this shouldn't be necessary if some much-needed work is done. Lyra § talk 04:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

just about every sentence in this article...

...is a claim that needs a citation, onr that goes beyond "everybody knows this." Deny this and lose all credibility. P-Foster (talk) 04:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on it. Like i said work in progress, I will get around to adding citations soon--BenB (talk) 04:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I just looked through the template list for ten minutes and we don't have anything that means "needs sources." Should I make one? Lyra § talk 04:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That would be awesome. P-Foster (talk) 04:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Just added a few cites, more to come--BenB (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's the template:

This page contains too many unsourced statements and needs to be improved. Crime woo/Archive1 could use some help. Please research the article's assertions. Whatever is credible should be sourced, and what is not should be removed.

I don't think it's necessary now. You're doing good work, BenB. Lyra § talk 04:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't call a link to wikipedia a "source". ħuman 04:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

" obvious what the sentence is getting at. no need for a fact tag here"

if it's so obvious, it shouldn't be hard to get a citation. The claim itself is actually problematic in that it's not the case that "whenever some horrific crime goes down the media jumps all over it"--there are always more and less "deserving" victims in the media's eyes. Of the hundreds and thousands of missing children all around the world, why did one white British girl get global media attention? Of all the people who go missing in Latin America or the Caribbean, why did one white American girl get national attention for months? How many people were murdered in the US last year? which ones made the national media, and why? To just assume that the media treats all horrific crimes with an equal sense of shock/dismay and sensation is to overlook a lot of what stories we tell ourselves about crime and who its victims are. P-Foster (talk) 04:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Get off the grass. Of course I don't think the media jumps on every single violent story, but it does focus for long periods of time on particular ones that go on and on and on. I don't know where you are from but where I live almost the entire news segment is violent crime after violent crime and I think that this is leading to the perception that crime statistics are going up, even though they are actually going down. Perhaps the sentence can be worded better but its not the sort of thing that we need a fact tag for. --Damo^Hi 05:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Give well-known examples? ħuman 04:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Also...

Psychic detection should be mentioned. And articlised. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Grafitti

I removed the bit about grifitti. There is strong evidence to suggest the conditions of a neighborhood are directly linked to the crime rate. This is known as the "Broken Window Theory" The premis is that criminals congregate in places of urban decay because they percieve that no one cares about that area, which means they are less likely to be caught--BenB (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know - far too much hysteria over a purported crime epidemic is really a mindset that uppity Negroes, kids loitering around with their hats on backwards and baggy pants, skateboarders, pawn shops and check cashing stores, etc. = "crime". So it goes with graffiti and broken windows. Graffiti and broken windows mean there is "crime" in the neighborhood to many people, when the only thing they really signify is graffiti and broken windows in the neighborhood. This doesn't mean the latter two things shouldn't be cleaned up... Secret Squirrel (talk) 02:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Broken window isnt about loitering skater boards and such nonsense. It says that the physical condition on a neighborhood IE Broken windows, unkempt lawns, grafitti, etc are symbolic indicators to criminals that it is OK to commit crimes there. hell the broken window theory was one of the things that caused such a drastic drop in the NYC crime rate--BenB (talk) 04:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Learn how to indent successively. Also, the "broken window" thing relates to whatsisnames (ex Boston chief cop) work as NYC cop boss, and was written about by that Malcolm Gladwell "thinging point" (sorry for the lack of clarity) guy. And, yes it is about everything like loitering skateboarders. References will probably help you deter your detractors, especially if they aren't to WP. ħuman 04:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah mean like this

http://www.suffolk.edu/34417.html http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/02/08/breakthrough_on_broken_windows/ http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=743284 Just to name a few--BenB (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and I remember a big part of the NYC "project" was to clean graffiti off subway cars "daily". I think I remember that, anyway. ħuman 01:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The media and crime

The media-reading public is partly responsible.

'In this area everybody goes round being nice to each other and the worst that happens is somebody drops a bit of litter' is not news.

'This area has an average number of parking fines/other minor everyday incidents' is not news.

Crimes (particularly bizarre ones/those in which purportedly upright members of society are the perpetrators) are considered newsworthy.

On D.A.R.E. and Homoeopathy

I remember in first or second grade when some people from D.A.R.E. came in. They gave each of us little coloring books. Although I vaguely remember a few pages, in the clearest memory I have there was a page which headed the whole thing. It began with saying that drugs are used in medicine, and shows an anthromorphized elephant with a stomachache taking an antacid and feeling better. Then, it says that taking drugs when you are healthy will make you sick, showing the elephant with a stomachache. I concluded from this that taking Medicine X which cures Symptom Y when you are not sick will cause you to feel Symptom Y, almost like homoeopathy, but without the diluting bull. Fortunately, the cognitive dissonance with germ theory allowed me to prevent going down this line of delusion. Discuss. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Kids are dumb. --145.94.77.43 (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)