Talk:Corrections

message: If anyone's interested, I've proposed a new wikiproject for the creation of articles regarding specific prisons here. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject Prisons 

message: Is this some legal theory terminology? I've never heard of "sanctions, which can be positive (rewarding)". Have mörser, will travel (talk) 02:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Positive sanctions? 

message: You are not allowed to reinstate a  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  tag), the proposal is aborted and may not be re-proposed." Your first addition . Your reinstatement.   Please revert yourself. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: I see you have immediately escalated to an AfD, so I won't waste my fingers replying here. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 02:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  You have violated the [[WP:PROD]] policy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  Postscript: I could have made the changes but I have no interest in expanding an article that I feel is redundant, for the reasons I stated in the deletion nomination. It would take a major re-write, expansion, globalization, and renaming before I would reconsider the nomination, but then we would just have another article on Prison, Penology, Recidivism, Rehabilitation (penology), or at least,Incarceration in the United States. --JeffJ (talk) 04:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation regarding terminology 

message: I see a different page number was added for an unspecified "volume", I assume meaning edition or printing.  It would help if the ISBN and details for that are provided. My 9th edition has xxxi, 1920 p.,  . Have mörser, will travel (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 "-Deluxe". Hope that helps. --JeffJ (talk) 03:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe you mistyped some digit because Worldcat and Google have not heard of that ISBN. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 05:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black's edition(s) 

message: 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.
 72.203.101.241 (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Women in Corrections