This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Correction and Detention FacilitiesWikipedia:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesTemplate:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesCorrection and Detention Facilities articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the
legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 26 April 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Peer reviewers:
Hcutler,
Aarnold15.
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
GOGHVAN195.
You are not allowed to reinstate a {{prod}} template once it has been removed in good faith: "If any person (even the author him/herself) objects to the deletion (usually by removing the {{proposed deletion}} tag), the proposal is aborted and may not be re-proposed." Your first addition
[1]. Your reinstatement.
[2] Please revert yourself.
Have mörser, will travel (
talk)
20:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)reply
I did indeed violate
WP:PROD, in good faith, however you failed to:
To object to and therefore permanently prevent a proposed deletion, remove the proposed deletion tag from the article. You are encouraged, but not required, to also:
Explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page.
Consider notifying the editors involved in the PROD by placing a Deprod tag on their user talk page.
Add or modify an Old prod full tag on the article's talk page, to prevent renomination under Proposed deletion. It will then be listed at Category:Past proposed deletion candidates for easy tracking.
Consider improving the article to address the concerns raised.
You are not required to follow these steps, but in the interest of good faith editing and general courtesy I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that you offer your rationale as to why this article should not be deleted.--
JeffJ (
talk)
20:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)reply
The citation for the article's statement "As an academic discipline, corrections also goes by the older name of penology" states "Earlier scholars were more honest, calling what we now call corrections by the name penology, which means the study of punishment for crime." In the context of the entire "What is corrections" section, the author considers the term corrections to be an inaccurate euphemism, and does not denigrate penology as an "older name". As such, the citation is not a valid one and has been removed. --
JeffJ (
talk)
19:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)reply
They indeed argue that it is an euphemism, but that does invalidate the fact that it is used, including by them, instead of penology. The very title of their book is corrections. I have replaced the passage that bothered you with the very quote you gave above, which to me says the same thing.
Have mörser, will travel (
talk)
22:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)reply
But you are stating in the article that penology is an "older name", inferring that it is an outdated term compared to corrections. My stance is that while that might be true, your citation does not support that statement.--
JeffJ (
talk)
23:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)reply
I'm not seeing why you have to be so adversarial given that virtually every time I point out a problem in the article, after you argue with me about it, you immediately repair the problem. You obviously agree that these problem are legitimate in that you fix them, so why pick a fight in the process? --
JeffJ (
talk)
23:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)reply
You're the one with the
WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics here. I did not and do not see any problem with what I have written; I merely complied with your absurd demands for the sake of making progress instead of wasting my time arguing with you in circles. Of course, the article reads slightly worse as a result, but that's the
price I have to pay for writing in Wikipedia. You could have frankly implemented your demands yourself by putting in the quote you just wrote on this talk page in the article itself instead of stripping the reference and
arguing to death a moot point.
Have mörser, will travel (
talk)
02:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)reply
I don't know, It looks to me like you agree with my critiquing of the article but are feeling quite upset about it, so you make the improvements I suggest but have to fire nukes at me in the process. Either make the changes and quietly go about your business, or argue the merits of the existing content and leave the personal insults out of it. --
JeffJ (
talk)
04:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Thanks. Printing was the word I was looking for. I thought of using edition but that would have confused the issue since we're both referring to the 9th Edition. Mine is "
ISBN9780314199498 Parameter error in {{
ISBN}}: checksum-Deluxe". Hope that helps. --
JeffJ (
talk)
03:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)reply
I blanked the entire stupid section. Not only is it severely poorly written. It has no citation and screams "PoV". If someone feels like putting it back in albeit heavily reworded then that's fine, but at this point there's no reason for it to currently exist as it does.
"Blanking out" this section was the best thing that's happened to this website.