Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corrections

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Certainly no consensus to delete, but the discussion shows that editorial discussion remains necessary to arrive at a consensus about how to continue with editing the article. Sandstein 06:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article offers little information on a subject that is well covered in other articles such as Prison, Penology, Recidivism, Rehabilitation (penology), Incarceration in the United States, etc. JeffJ (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That someone thinks a topic with umpteen books about it (click the "books" link above) should be a red link beggars belief. I can see an argument for merging this with penology, but something like that should be discussed on the talk page; given the current trend in terminology [1] it may be more appropriate to do a merge in the reverse direction. This nomination has a shade of WP:BATTLEGROUND given the repeated stripping of the sole reference [2] [3] [4] by the nominator. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 09:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are indeed many books on the subject, but the subject is also well covered, in great detail, in the other articles. This stub offers very little information and no references. There was one "reference" that started as just a Wikilink to Black's Law Dictionary, then expanded to list the 9th edition and page number. The reference was in support of the rather vague statement "Many US states have a Department of Corrections." but a check of the 9th edition found nothing supporting the statement. That this stub and its advocate(s) are unable to provide more in the way of citations/references speaks volumes. The other related articles offer much more in-depth information and are very well cited.

As for a merge to Corrections: The term is not global and typically only used in the US and parts of Canada. Even then, a majority of North American systems (if we include US counties) use the term Correctional, as in Correctional Services. Other parts of the world favour Prison, as in Prison Services. The word prison is also globally recognizable as referring to a penal system over such terms as corrections or correctional. Wikipedia itself redirects Correctional facility, Detention facility, Correctional center, Detention center, etc. to the global Prison. Terms like Corrections center and Corrections facility aren't even redirected, just red-linked.

A merge of this article to other articles would be redundant as the subject is already well covered.--JeffJ (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "Department of Corrections" is given as example on the entry on correction. An the rest of the paragraph is based on that page as well. Deleting the reference three times, each time with a slightly different pretext is beyond disingenuousness. I won't waste my time to argue anything else with you. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The citation makes more sense now that it's been placed in the proper part of the article. I was unable to figure out that it refered to the Cut and paste job/Plagiarism in the earlier part of the paragraph as my copy of Black's lists the reference on page 424. A proper placing of the citation could have prevented this confusion and the deletes. --JeffJ (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Referring back to the statement "given the current trend in terminology [5]": A Google book search brings up almost double the hits for "prison" as it does for "corrections" (all US authors), so it does not appear that there's any real trend, except maybe in the US.--JeffJ (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to penology, and perhaps add a sentence to the lead noting the use of the term corrections in the US (not sure if that is necessary) - this is an important topic, but an important topic worldwide - not just in the US and we should be careful not to show systemic bias. I agree that we don't need two broad "umbrella" articles on the same topic and penology is clearly superior to corrections for global generic usage.Ajbpearce (talk) 07:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Objection. The information on US terminology and institutions cannot be simply discarded. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 10:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As for penology being "global generic usage" --> ^{[citation needed]} The article on penology is basicaly devoid of references on all substantive matters, including this claim. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 10:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My impression, now documented in the article on penology with a source (OED), is that it usually refers only to the academic discipline, and not to the practice. There's also for instance an Indian book called Penology And Correctional Administration, [6] a title which makes no sense if penology commonly includes practice as well. I think the term corrections is broader, as documented in its article. Definitions in social sciences are soft. I see no real harm in having a 3-paragraph article on corrections instead of a very confusing one that would result by trying to define penology as something that it apparently isn't commonly construed as. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 10:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wary of editing this page again, as we are rapidly approaching the point where the effort on the deletion discussion exceeds the effort in the actual articles - but if you feel the information on US practise is valuable then add it to the penology article in a section on the US. Your second point could apply equally to this article - both articles are stubs and very badly developed. If penology is not the accepted term globally (I have no expertise in this area) then there is need for a better alternative - I am sure that is not "corrections" which is wholly US centric. The sourcing thus far has been very poor on both articles, (OED and Blacks??!) and, to me, suggests recent editors are new too the topic area. If these articles are to be valuable they will need much better long term sourcing Ajbpearce (talk) 11:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added another paragraph to the article from a new source which explains that "corrections" vs. "penology" was a philosophical, not just terminological issue, and that it also had real impact on the practice. So, I think it's reasonable to at least have the well-sourced contents of this article merged to other one if not simply kept separate. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 11:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The explanation above by Have mörser, will travel (talk) explaining the philosophical difference between "corrections" vs. "penology" is sufficient to demonstrate why this article should be kept. The difference between the Separate system and the Auburn System was an earlier philosophical difference in American penitentiaries. See Eastern State Penitentiary#History for more on that difference.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your point on the difference between "corrections" vs. "penology" is well taken, but does not mitigate the fact that the subject of corrections is still well covered in several other articles such as Prison, Recidivism, Rehabilitation (penology), Incarceration in the United States.--JeffJ (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The various articles take various approaches, but the common theme I find with the alternatives proposed by JeffJ is that they take longer to say less on the aspects covered by the Corrections article. Penology especially, taken as a whole, is rather insipid and should probably be merged/condensed/enlivened into this one. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.