Talk:Solitary confinement

message: This article has crazy bias. I'm gonna tag this with npov. No mention of responses to criticisms or an NPOV discussion of the positive effects of SHUs. I'm no fan of solitary confinement; in fact, I think it's worse than the death penalty on the negative human rights scale. But this article needs to be fair. hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 01:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is still one-sided. It has no actual historical information about solitary confinement (merely the historical issues solitary has supposedly had). It has no identification of what constitutes solitary: Is it a dark hole or a regular cell? Do all prisons have a standard design or do they differ? Is solitary confinement practiced throughout the world? It is better for this article to be two paragraphs and contain useful information than to read like a one-sided diatribe against solitary confinement. The criticisms section should be limited to two paragraphs- one talking about solitary and its effects on inmates preferably with some real life (not first person) examples of how people were harmed in the long-term by it (i.e., he went in a thief and came out a mass murderer) and another talking about its effects on teens using a similar example. To be balanced, there should also be a section of equal length detailing the benefits. Right now, the main article that reads for numerous paragraphs is repetitive and can be summed up in one simple sentence: The author of this article hates solitary confinement and passionately believes it causes all sorts of psychological side-effects (including ones that may be fake), as well as increasing recidivism. This article on solitary confinement cites Charles Dickens!!! Yes, it was a book by him about a trip he took to America, but it was also an opinion piece. Although there are 83 citations, most are like this and need to be cleaned up: the majority are opinion pieces or (and I cringe at this) articles published in scientific journals that used opinion pieces in their citations! I have looked at several and found no actual scientific research where an author looked at psychological diagnosis and treatment to compare how these changed before and after solitary. When you are dealing with a prison population, you cannot simply say that they had psychological problems and solely attribute that to solitary confinement. The majority of prisons today have replaced the sanitariums of old and more than 50% of their population is already mentally ill (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/mhppji.pdf) when they go into prison. I am sure there is real scientific research out there that shows solitary confinement is detrimental, but this article doesn't cite it- or its lost in the slew of garbage citations. 2601:245:C100:F500:1D10:81CB:4EEA:446E (talk) 11:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Crazy bias

message: Not sure if this should be here at all tbh, no references at all and clearly stated as being 'Based on this writer's personal experience', there is nothing of note there except possibly the statement that nearly 10% of prisoners are in Solitary Confinement (not even sure of the validity of this statement). 82.2.221.53 (talk) 09:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Solitary confinement in Canada

message: Should this section be balanced with a justification or benefit section?--DrRisk13 (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage and criticism 

message: The case is said to be renowned. Where? By whom? While 14 years of solitary confinement are cruel, far worse things happened in the world. And where is the cultural reference? There is little encyclopedic material in the paragraph. Even the wording (among the five greatest Romanians when being on place five) sounds more like an advertisement. -- Zz (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Transferred the following: One of the most notable and renowned cases of solitary confinement comes from the story of pastor Richard Wurmbrand who ranks fifth among the greatest Romanians of all time according to the Mari Români poll. In 1948, Wurmbrand was imprisoned for 14 years and sentenced to solitary confinement for his involvement in underground churches. Wurmbrand endured years of solitary torture, both mentally and physically all the while composing hundreds of sermons, delivered nightly to an unseen (fictional) congregation. He later committed them to memory by summarizing them in rhymes. Wurmbrand authored 18 books about his solitary confinement experience and traveled across the world forming what would be known as The Voice of the Martyrs. -- Zz (talk) 13:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wurmbrand 

message: As far as cultural references go, I think a better example could be Henri Charrière's story in Papillon. Any objection to me starting an "In fiction" section including this? -- œ™ 22:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Papillon

message: I've removed an old POV template with a dormant discussion, per the instructions on that template's page:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
If editors are continuing to work toward resolution of any issue and I missed it, however, please feel free to restore. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: The Criticism section, instead of summarizing various criticisms of solitary confinement, independently lambasts the practice; e.g., "[solitary confinement] is not sound policy".  I also question its blanket claims; e.g., that US solitary confinement generally violates international human rights law.  Let's neutralize this article.
Duxwing (talk) 08:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Issue 

message: The CA section seems likely to me to be original research, especially the phrase:
"If a door is inadvertently opened (frequently called a day room), allowing an inmate unrestrained access to another inmate or officer, the inmates may shake hands and return to their cells, or fight. If the inmates fight, the fight will not end until officers use force to stop the fight."
Shake hands? Why would those be the only two options? Is it physically impossible for a fight to end without officer intervention? This is really nonsensical.
It was introduced with this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solitary_confinement&diff=prev&oldid=573270396. It seems to me that most content in that edit is suspicious and I think it would be best to revert it. Capitalsigma (talk) 05:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very strange content in CA section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Solitary confinement. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160429020641/http://www.dagbladet.no/f/domisakenomsoningsforhold15107496tviotirabbstaten.pdf to http://www.dagbladet.no/f/domisakenomsoningsforhold15107496tviotirabbstaten.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "Significance of environmental factors" would be better. Maybe even merge it with other sections around it? Theanswertolifetheuniverseandeverything (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Environment is a factor" section heading doesn't fit Wikipedia's tone 

message: This section is nonsensical. It adds nothing to the readers understanding of solitary confinement, and belongs in an article dedicated the the experience of women and minorities in the prison system. It has been tacked on the end, and does not improve the quality of the article in any way. For example:
>Women in solitary confinement are treated as less than human, in ways which parallel not only the larger societal degradation of women but also that of people of color. The sexually abusive nature of their interactions with the guards, and the denial of medical care, social contact, and resources, can be seen as racialized.
This claim is made with absolutely no citation whatsoever, is clearly quite opinionated, and is only tangentially relevant to the concept of solitary confinement- the same issues present themselves in the general prison population and as the author states, society at large, and is not specific to solitary confinement. Hence a dedicated section in this article is unwarranted. It serves to cause confusion, and turn the article from a neutral, fact-based read about solitary confinement into a practical opinion piece, with tenuous links between the subject matter and the information provided, and vast reaches in logic- for example, it reads: "Women who are put into solitary confinement are often isolated because of actions that challenge dominant perspectives of femininity". Where is the evidence for this? Is this an established fact? Possibly, however there is certainly nothing in the section to back it up.
I'm not necessarily debating the content of this section, I'm not claiming it to be either true or false. It just simply is only tangentially related to the main topic, has numerous claims made as fact without citation, is emotive and opinionated, and belongs in a separate wiki article dedicated to the experience of women and minorities in prison, as the vast majority of issues presented are, again, present in the prison system/society at large and are not specific to people in solitary confinement. A dedicated section of the article on this topic is unwarranted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.241.147 (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women of color in solitary confinement 

message: While this article provides lots of details about different facets of solitary confinement, it fails to contribute an equal amount of information regarding proponents for this topic. This may cause readers to feel a bias in the article, and also just doesn't create a good ratio of information to categories. TF951497642 (talk) 08:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of info for proponents section 

message: Multiple citations in the article link to online newspaper sources or media outlets that don't seem to meet the criteria for credible sources, or at least certainly not scholarly: 1, 2, 5, 20, 21, 23, 26, 31, 32, 39, 45, 51, 55, 70, 85, and 86.
TF951497642 (talk) 08:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreliable sources 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Solitary confinement's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "ABC":
From Hypertension: 
From La Tumba (Caracas): 
Reference named "USsenate":
From Bolivarian Intelligence Service: 
From La Tumba (Caracas): 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Solitary confinement]] 

message: «Incommunicado» sounds like Spanish. But apparently it is not. Where is the word coming from?
--Werfur (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  origins of the word? 

message: This section misrepresented two outdated studies as if they are currently accepted scientific results. That is not the case. According to the 2017 review:
Therefore, I removed the section  (t · c) buidhe 01:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counter-arguments section 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :AdSeg and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 27#AdSeg until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Beeblebrox (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "AdSeg" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Meditation room and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at  until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Meditation room" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: — Assignment last updated by Spicymama01 (talk) 22:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Crime and Media

message: — Assignment last updated by Koolkat822 (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Senior Seminar