While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Violence interruption page were merged into Cure Violence on 23 February 2023. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org
|
However, a three-year review by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2009 found that it reduced shootings from 16 percent to 34 percent and eliminated retaliatory murders resulting from increased use of public education slogans — such as “Don’t shoot. I want to grow up.” — and conflict mediation and community mobilization.
I have a really hard time understanding what this sentence is saying. Can someone who knows more elucidate a bit? I suppose this sentence also needs a citation since it's quoting some facts and figures. JTConroy88 (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
More comments are requested at Talk:A.C.A.B.#Request for comment on text removed from ACAB article. 71.178.129.13 (talk) 03:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hello fellow Wikipedian! I am working on this article in hopes of getting it to FA status. There are a few broad points that I want to make sure I address which are listed below (I'll sign each of them so that they can be independently discussed if relevant). I have a draft/notes user page. I used to have a worklog in this section, but it seems pretty noisy and I'm not sure it's actually useful to anyone. However, I did move the worklog to the talk page of the notes/draft, and I'll keep updating it, because it just seems proper to have one. *shrugs* Skyvine (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Rewrite History: The history section is rather abbreviated in its current state, though it does contain some useful sources. I'm working on a rewrite as I go through a newspaper archive to research its history. My plan is to do a first pass by going through an archive, then supplement the information with web searches for events that seem notable. I generally prefer to incorporate changes into articles as I go, so that information can be shared as widely as possible as early as possible. However, this seems difficult to do with history because it would end up being lopsided - if I got what I have now into a publishable state, there would be a significant amount of content about the first half of its history and next to nothing about the second half. Skyvine (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Clean up associated pages: There are some pages related to this article, such as violence interruption and credible messenger program, which don't seem to have enough content to justify their existence. I will incorporate what they have into this article and set them as redirects until the sections grow large enough to justify a separate page. Skyvine (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Comprehensive review of research & criticisms: There are a number of academic studies, many of which are already in the article, but some of which are not. I will expand on this section and improve the organization, to present it more narratively (but still encyclopedically) instead of just listing the studies. Additionally, there are some criticisms I have consistently seen in newspapers which are not mentioned here, most notably accusations that this model funds criminals. This is a tricky subject to discuss in a nuanced way while still staying neutral. Cure Violence has consistently put out arguments that working with reformed criminals is essential to their success, but this is also exactly the thing that is being criticized. Ithink that discussing their arguments in the "model" section and discussing the criticisms separately in its own section addresses all of the concerns, but my confidence in this is low. Feedback would be very much appreciated. =)
Skyvine (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Merging endorsements into appropriate sections: I'm keeping the "notable endorsements" section in its listicle format for the moment because the information seems relevant, but I don't think the section really makes sense. There are certainly appropriate places to use lists, but I think it would be a better article if the endorsements were placed into places where they naturally fit. For example, the NGO Advisor award can go in the infobox (there's an "awards" parameter) and the Dwyane Wade fundraiser can be discussed in the context of the 2007 budget cuts, along with Cicero's general fundraising efforts. Skyvine (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Partners:Ithink that this section is actually a place where a list is appropriate. Still thinking about it. Skyvine (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Update Citations: There are a couple of problems with the citations I've added so far. First, I misunderstood the role of "publisher" in "cite news", this should be changed to "work" in I believe every single citation I've added. Second, it has recently come to my attention that if you make a clipping on newspapers.com, it is publicly viewable (the recently featured article on New Jersey's 1927 biannual elections proposal uses this in a couple of places). I've found most of my newspaper sources through this website, but I thought clippings were just convenient bookmarks for personal use; I'll update citations with links to clippings so that there is greater transparency for editors who might want to object to the accuracy of the text I write. In cases where first-party sources are available I will continue to use them, as first-party sources are generally preferred for good reason. Skyvine (talk) 21:14, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
I underestimated the amount of work this would be when I started. I wanted to go through local articles for every implementing site in order to get as complete a history as possible, which would be good but will take literal years even if I can find the time for it (which I have not been able to recently) and people are still looking at this article in the meantime.
So my new plan is this: incorporate what I have right now into the article. It's incomplete, but it's more complete than what is currently there. As I find time, continue adding things piecemeal. Most of what I have right now is focused on the history, so that will be my next update, but there are a number of studies on implementing programs and I think that is a more urgent concern than getting a complete history of the organization. Some of the studies are reviewing more than just CV, so that might also create opportunities to link to related articles which is generally a good thing when the links are added judiciously. skyvine 🏳️⚧️ (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm currently thinking that it makes sense for Violence Interruption to just redirect to this page, the contents are very similar and it's not clear to me that there's a meaningful distinction between organizations that work with Cure Violence and organizations that implement violence interruption as a practice. I made a longer post on the Violence Interruption talk page since that's the one that would get replaced, but mentioning it here too in case anyone with a perspective is watching this page more closely than that one. I haven't looked at the standards/process for this kind of action, I'll think about it more deeply once I'm done improving this page. Skyvine (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hi @CRansford! Thanks for helping improve this article. I see you've made several edits recently, and there are just 2 points where I'm not sure the edit was correct. I'm hoping to discuss these points here so that we can reach consensus before I make any further edits to the article.
The first point is in the edit removing the sections on gendered violence and the medicalization of violence. I took another look at the source on gendered violence, and I see that I was indeed mistaken on that point. I was relying on the quote from Shaw on that point, but looking back Shaw was actually from the Illinois Violence Prevention Authority. The article mentioned that this org was going to train CeaseFire workers, but I didn't see any follow-up to that when I was looking into Chicago so presumably it either never happened or it whiffed. I agree that the section on gendered violence needed to be removed.
However, I disagree with the removal of the medicalization section. Full disclosure, I did not originally write up that part and I do not currently have access to the full article. However, the stated reason for removal that it is not medicalization because public health is not medicine (eg, pharmaceutical drugs) is a misinterpretation of the term medicaliztion. I understand that this term might not be clear to people who have not encountered it before, so I think it would be appropriate to restore this part of the content and link the word to the Wikipedia article explaining the term. Looking at the abstract, the researchers were specifically investigating Cure Violence's methodology so it is certainly on-topic. I grant that the peer-review process has its problems, but it also has some value in filtering out some arguments that are completely illegitimate, so I think we'd need a strong argument (such as widespread and widely accepted criticism, or revelations of undisclosed author bias) before dismissing it out-of-hand.
The other point that I disagree with is changing the section heading from "outreach work" to "behavior change". This heading was based on the terminology used in the Skogan report. Now, the Skogan report is not a first-party document and I agree that it is good to align with the terms used by the organization as much as is reasonable for the sake of clarity, particularly as people reading this article are likely to also be reading materials from the organization, but I have not found a reliable reference from the organization describing their methodology in full. In fact, they seem rather opaque to me, focusing their communication more on their alleged results than on explaining what they actually do. If you have found a comprehensive explanation from them I would greatly appreciate being made aware of it. If we do need to move to the "Behavior Change" terminology, then we will also need to update the term used in the lead-in paragraph to the "model" section, and it would probably be good to reword some of the contents of the behavior change section as well.
Let me know if there is anything incorrect or missing in this analysis. Thanks! skyvine 🏳️⚧️ (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply