Talk:Broken windows theory

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Broken windows theory article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Psychology High‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Enforcement High‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 11 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MarkSir0118, Skaswinkel. Peer reviewers: Emilycrawford18, Lindseybrans, Simkinsfrannie.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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: Kgreen50.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support for the theory

The "Support for the theory" section does not actually offer any support for the theory. The theory as stated in the opening paragraph of the article implies that aggressive targeting of low level crime prevents higher level crimes from happening. The "Support for the theory" section merely lists a few cases in which elements of the theory were acted upon. Actual support for the theory would include a statistical correlation of a decrease in the occurrence of higher level crimes when elements of the theory are acted upon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:CB02:8BC0:918A:934E:4216:B71F (talk) 06:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that section is weak. It boils down to a few cases of "implementation was followed by decrease in crime". This is a classic case of neglecting a fundamental logical principle: correlation does not imply causation. It's fine to cite those cases, but they need to be accompanied by a big grain of salt. I'm going to try to sprinkle more of it in there. According to PBS Frontline, Columbia Law School professor Bernard Harcout has done two major studies, and has found no evidence of a cause and effect relationship. If that Frontline article isn't already mentioned, I'll figure out how to add it. Danielx (talk) 08:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this 2017 Scientific American article citing replicated studies could help? https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/anthropology-in-practice/why-dont-people-return-their-shopping-carts/ 47.186.28.150 (talk)

Untitled

Assessed B Class. Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 12:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the "Critics of the theory" section needs a rewrite. It is actually very anti-critic and therefore npov 66.75.49.213 06:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I have re-cast the section to remove rebuttals. This is a list of criticisms that have been offered, not a debating ground. Fumblebruschi 21:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have citations for some of this section form some project work. Currently in a source on Antisocial behaviour, but I'm going to be checking the original sources for my work. I'll add these in at that point. Acidsaturation 12:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Footer contains a link to the unrelated article "Broken window fallacy". The author states this is unrelated. I say don't link to it then.

I agree. Quincybuddha

I've restructured the criticism part a bit, as a first step. Removed the tag, I think the whole article needs a revisiting. Also the "sucess" story is not referenced clearly and the language is not NPOV. Atoll (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I've taken out the following bit, please put back in if you find the references:

- Other correlations may easily be picked out of the available data: research has pointed out that the "zero tolerance" effect on serious crime is difficult to disentangle from other initiatives happening at around the same time in New York. These initiatives were 1) the police reforms described above, 2) programs that moved over 500,000 people into jobs from welfare at a time of economic buoyancy,^{[verification needed]} and 3) housing vouchers that enabled poor families to move to better neighborhoods. ^{[verification needed]}

The Theory in Action - POV

The theory in action section title either needs to be changed or the section needs to be written more neutrally —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ap4413 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I changed the title. What else needs to be done to clear the NPOV tag (resolve the dispute)? Gerardw (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. ([[[User:Ap4413|Ap4413]]) December 22, 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC).

Given the section title was changed per Ap4413's request and no further objections present, I removed the NPOV tag.Gerardw (talk) 01:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To do

ISBN and authors' names.

Detail NYC crime rates (5% decrease or 25% or what? And in which categories of crime?) or link to relevant page.
- Definitely not a decrease in rape, that's for sure.

--Ed Poor

I haven't read Freakanomics in a while, but I believe they said that the drop in the crime rate was not due to stricter gun laws. I think the third factor was more police on the streets, but I'd have to double check. --Spambi

I'm not sure if it's worth mentioning on the page, but in Malcolm Gladwell's book "The Tipping Point" he refers to this principle a lot, but I don't think he refers to it as the "broken windows theory." At least, I can't recall him calling it that. Kat, Queen of Typos 10:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a section on the Broken Windows Theory from page 141-146, in the chapter "The Power of Context (Part One) =3

About the netherlands experiment: "The results confirmed the theory" is a rather ridiculous statement for anyone who understands the concept of theories. It also seems to lack npov, as results can only add credence or support to a theory, and as such seems overzealous on behalf of supporting the thoery.

I removed the hyperlink to Jens Ludwig because that is (obviously) the wrong Jens Ludwig. Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.95.49.197 (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's success

Ironically, Wikipedia works on much the same principle. Articles that are watched closely are hard to damage, because changes that aren't valuable are quickly reverted. Graffiti just can't stay up very long.

But this depends on enough people watching enough articles. --Uncle Ed 16:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. But does the fact that vandalism gets reverted quickly decrease its frequency? Pomte 21:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not. The timing and method of vandalism reversion is an art, not a science. I guess the point is not to let it accumulate, or stay up too long. But it can give it too much energy if it's removed right away. The idea is to make it too boring for anyone to bother making a concerted effort to mess up pages. --Uncle Ed 22:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fixing broken windows quickly requires an army of maintenance workers ready to be dispatched on a moment's notice, which can grow to become outrageously expensive. Yet there seems to be little recognitition of the fact that affluent communities have the resources to fix and clean all sorts of crap, but impovershed areas don't have the money to educate their best students, much less chase around behind the miscreants and clean up their messes.71.191.247.254 (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting point, however dangerous, since it implies a problematic analogy. It identifies misuse of wikipedia with crime. Now the idea of the proponents is not that that fixing broken windows will prevent tags and graffiti, but will prevent serious crime. It is outright cynical to ignore social divide. Even if there is a correlation in the data, the identification of certain forms of living as signs of criminal behavior is not so easily justified. In other words, this point about wikipedia falls in the same trap as the "broken window hypothesis". Atoll (talk) 23:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About the netherlands experiment: "The results confirmed the theory" is a rather ridiculous statement for anyone who understands the concept of theories. It also seems to lack npov, as results can only add credence or support to a theory, and as such seems overzealous on behalf of supporting the thoery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.42.179.99 (talk) 05:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Irrelevant Software References

Propose removing Broken Windows in Software Development -- someone please look at the Google redirection and Wikipedia browsing statistics. If more than 10% are here on software related matters keep it (and I'll eat my hat). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.188.210 (talk) 06:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved reference to the Software Entropy article. I didn't check the statistics, just decided to Be bold Gerardw (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of Steve Sailer

Note how Steve Sailer is mentioned before The Wallstreet Journal and The Economist as disputing Levitt's and Dubner's abortion theory regarding crime. Sailer is neither a trained economist nor a trained sociologist so I have no idea why he's mentioned at all in regards to the Freakonomics authors, nevermind ahead of more reputable sources. His name should be removed in connection with this article.

New research supports theory

Here is a link to new research published in science: [Signs of petty crime, K. Keizer, S. Lindenberg, L. Steg (2008). The Spreading of Disorder]. The link is to the Research Digest Blog of The British Psychological Society. --Monado There's already a reference to a secondary source in the article. You could add the above link as a reference if you'd like. Gerardw (talk) 12:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Critics of the Theory

Anonymous (IP) editor added parenthetical However, Lott's own research has not been immune from criticism. without citation. I put a note on User talk:81.159.33.120 encouraging more detail. The line doesn't seem to add a lot of value -- should in be left in or reverted? Gerardw (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a professor of Hardvard, Broken Windows has very serious conflicts with the societal urban cities in the east because of the hood

fixing Broken WIndows vs. Zero Tolerance

There seems to be a mingling of these two ideas, which to my mind are not identical. "Fixing Broken Windows" refers to the idea that taking care of minor problems (such as a few broken windows) quickly will reduce further acts of vandalism. "Zero Tolerance" is treating all violations of a law or policy with equal harshness. I suppose that in the case of a kid who breaks a window playing baseball who gets the same penalty as a deliberate vandal you do have some degree of relationship, but whether or not the broken windows get quickly fixed is not dependent on the penalty assessed to the breaker nor on how that penalty is determined.69.29.207.109 (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the New York City section, and agree with the above statement. The theory, to me, means that if there is so amount of pride in the area (clean and maintained) that more low level crime doesn't start and thus doesn't blossom into larger crimes. The section in question also reads like a critical essay and not a Wiki entry. --99.92.76.100 (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

beehive

The insert on beehive does not include any references and does not show how it relates to main article. Frankly it reads like a promotional piece for the organization. Gerardw (talk) 12:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "Broken windows theory"

The broken windows theory itself is what is interesting; the theory is much bigger than that one book. Besides, it was the original article that received the most attention, rather than the book.

Also, at the end there is a section that has nothing to do with broken windows theory itself, but rather discusses the effect of abortion on crime. This section does not belong in this article and should be moved/removed. Koyos (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the reference to abortion is not irrelevant. It is offering support to the alternative theory that demographic changes were the cause of the change in crime rate rather than the broken windows theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.255.5.128 (talk) 07:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the unsigned IP. There is more than one theory about what caused the decrease. futurebird (talk) 13:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is irrelevant to the theory itself but it is relevant to the criticisms of the theory.82.25.0.135 (talk) 14:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use in software development

Hunt & Thomas (1999) describe in their book Pragmatic Programming a similar viewpoint to the broken windows theory, but applied to software development. One of the principles they mention is to have 'no broken windows', as in bad designs, wrong decisions, or poor code. I think this is relevant to this article as well. Van der Hoorn (talk • contribs) 15:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

/* Criminology */ Citation needed on sentence starting "In a 2007 study called "Reefer Madness""

In the criticisms section we find the line below. All it really says is that someone disagrees with the theory in their 'study' but does not give a citation or what in the study leads them to this conclusion. 'mean reversion' is a statistical term that describes something going back to its normal state, but it doesn't explain why it is its normal state, nor reasons for the extreme measurement. Presumably they are saying that crime went down and now it is going back to normal after Giuliani left office. But they are not providing any reason why, which is hardly a valid criticism. We don't know whether it is because they stopped the zero tolerance policy or some other reason. If this is not cited AND explained better in context, then the line needs to be removed.

In a 2007 study called "Reefer Madness" in the journal Criminology and Public Policy, Harcourt and Ludwig found further evidence confirming that mean reversion fully explained the changes in crime rates in the different precincts in New York during the 1990s

Theshowmecanuck (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Impact of recent student edits

This article has recently been edited by students as part of their course work for a university course. As part of the quality metrics for the education program, we would like to determine what level of burden is placed on Wikipedia's editors by student coursework.

If you are an editor of this article who spent time correcting edits to it made by the students, please tell us how much time you spent on cleaning up the article. Please note that we are asking you to estimate only the negative effects of the students' work. If the students added good material but you spent time formatting it or making it conform to the manual of style, or copyediting it, then the material added was still a net benefit, and the work you did improved it further. If on the other hand the students added material that had to be removed, or removed good material which you had to replace, please let us know how much time you had to spend making those corrections. This includes time you may have spent posting to the students' talk pages, or to Wikipedia noticeboards, or working with them on IRC, or any other time you spent which was required to fix problems created by the students' edits. Any work you did as a Wikipedia Ambassador for that student's class should not be counted.

Please rate the amount of time spent as follows:

0 -No unproductive work to clean up
1 - A few minutes of work needed
2 - Between a few minutes and half an hour of work needed
3 - Half an hour to an hour of work needed
4 - More than an hour of work needed

Please also add any comments you feel may be helpful. We welcome ratings from multiple editors on the same article. Add your input here. Thanks! -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

B-class review

This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kloke manin, dominican all day — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.253.130 (talk) 02:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article and crime prevention

"Before the introduction of this theory by Wilson and Kelling, Philip Zimbardo, a Stanford psychologist, arranged an experiment testing the broken-window theory in 1969." under "Article and crime prevention" - seems wrong, they may have tested something, but they can't have actually been testing the theory since the theory didn't exist at that time. Also poor English towards the end of the sentence with the date.Auto98uk (talk) 13:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on the "Essay" tag?

The Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought tag is dated more than a year ago, but I see no discussion. I am familiar with the theory and the current article is a reasonable presentation, not an essay. I could probably fix the "cite" tags if there are no current contributors. FriendlyFred (talk) 12:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FriendlyFred, I've also been a bit surprised by the essay banner and I tend to agree with your assessment. An essay is characterized by content (subjective POV) and/or style (potentially unencyclopedic), but I don't find these problems in the article, at least not to a significant degree. GregorB (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant article?

This is just the press release for the article and not the actual paper, but here. It's topical, and directly addresses the subject matter, but I don't know how to incorporate it in a way that isn't at least a little bit original research. Oh well. i kan reed (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Broken windows theory. 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/20150225100935/http://www.ricknevin.com/uploads/Lucifer_Curves_2-22-15.pdf to http://www.ricknevin.com/uploads/Lucifer_Curves_2-22-15.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Broken windows theory. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Broken windows theory. 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/20130228134225/http://lawreview.uchicago.edu/sites/lawreview.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/73.1/73_1_Harcourt_Ludwig.pdf to http://lawreview.uchicago.edu/sites/lawreview.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/73.1/73_1_Harcourt_Ludwig.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

The introduction should make it clearer the theory is mostly disproven and heavily criticized. Just look at the criticism area. It's 95%+ certainty that the theory wrong, and only a fruit of bad studies and flawed interpretations. Intro should be something like: The Broken Windows Theory is a heavily criticized mostly disproven theory from 1982 that states... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.85.121.233 (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except it isn't. A few studies are included in this article that support both the theory itself and certain policing strategies that are based off the theory. Anywikiuser (talk) 08:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Core quote

Consider a building with a few broken windows. If the windows are not repaired, the tendency is for vandals to break a few more windows. Eventually, they may even break into the building, and if it's unoccupied, perhaps become squatters or light fires inside. Or consider a pavement. Some litter accumulates. Soon, more litter accumulates. Eventually, people even start leaving bags of refuse from take-out restaurants there or even break into cars.

This quote, which is core to the article's opening, does not appear in the original Kelling/Wilson article as cited. Where did it come from? I'd rather reattribute than remove it altogether, if it's accurate. czar 16:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Found it: It's from Fixing Broken Windows, a 1998 book by Kelling and Catherine Coles. Anywikiuser (talk) 08:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More recent research

For possible inclusion in article: "Researchers find little evidence for 'broken windows theory,' say neighborhood disorder doesn't cause crime" (link at bottom of the article to the two journal papers from 2018). Schazjmd (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Impact" section instead of "Criticism" section

The article should not use "criticism" sections but instead cover the research on the topic in an "impact" section. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal behaviour that is targeted

The second sentence in the lead paragraph suggests that various "crimes" are targeted, yet the article only discusses addressing fixing the visible signs of crime, such as littering, vandalism and graffiti. Where does this list come from? Citations are needed for verification. As I understand it Police officers in New York did address the problem of of minor criminal behaviour by arresting people for these crimes to remove them from the environment and perhaps prevent the visible signs of crime being caused by these people. One anonymous editor has removed jaywalking with the somewhat cryptic comment "Not worldwide view", but I am uncertain if this means the crime is not one worldwide or not one targeted worldwide. Nevertheless, I have reverted that edit because the anonymous editor did not explain themselves nor cite any reasons for their thinking. I don't know if the theory is even applied worldwide, so there may be no global view about the theory in any case. Since the lead example of implementation is New York, the article should discuss what happened in New York, including the crimes that were targeted. This may be the difference between "Broken Windows" and "Zero Tolerance", so the article should at least explain the difference by the way criminal behaviour is addressed. The peelian principles that crime should be prevented rather than repressed and the absence of the signs of crime, rather than the visible evidence of Police dealing with it was a yardstick that Bratton and others used as a standard to follow. Perhaps it is a misunderstanding of what methods needed to be used to address the broken windows issue that we end up talking about targeting crime in the lead, but what is the evidence that these crimes were, or were not, targeted as part of the "Broken Windows" crime prevention strategy. The real question is: Did targeting these behaviour crimes work effectively? Or was this over-zealous policing that was contrary to the theory? Either way I think the article will benefit from some discussion about this issue both here and in the article. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

39% drop in crime clarity

The flag indicating that “normally a 10% reduction in unemployment would imply moving from 20% to 10%” is just plain wrong. The writer of this seems to not know about percentage points vs percentages. A 39% drop in crime (as in the article) is perfectly clear and accurate, as long as the source of that statistic is reliable. What even would be a 39 percentage point drop in crime? What is 100% crime? I suggest to remove that flag. 185.11.37.208 (talk) 07:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have removed the tag. 157.157.47.129 (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

US-centric

In many countries, "jaywalking" is not a crime, or is even encouraged. Sneezernickel (talk) 02:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: STS 1010

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2023 and 5 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wmquinn (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Kmdutkin, Waylonsmom.

— Assignment last updated by Jessicacariello (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Crime and Media

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lemoneww (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Eternitygxrl, An anonymous entity, Minney23.

— Assignment last updated by Dmaccartney (talk) 04:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]