Talk:Ferguson effect

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Black Lives Matter, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Black Lives Matter 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.Black Lives MatterWikipedia:WikiProject Black Lives MatterTemplate:WikiProject Black Lives MatterBlack Lives Matter
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology High‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
High	This article has been rated as High-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 24 August 2020 and 4 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): V.a.PJHC.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does it exist?

Shouldn't there be consensus among experts now? This was six years ago. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus seems to be that the effect exists; HOWEVER, this is sometimes used to assert broader claims, like fewer calls to 911, which may or may not be true.

The article should read that there is significant evidence for the claim, but narrow the claim to what is actually supported by evidence.

I've read a lot of articles and most find the effect exists. In fact, I haven't found a study that didn't find violent crime didn't increase in any areas. Some argue, "only homicides and robberies increased, but not other kinds of violent crime". None seem to argue that violent crime is unchanged with statistical significance.

In light of this, I propose modifying the article. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By "I've read a lot of articles", do you mean scientific articles? Primary or secondary sources? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Opening sentence needs work

"The Ferguson effect is the theory that increased distrust of police following the 2014 shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri has led to an increased crime rate (or sometimes increased murder rate) in major U.S. cities."

I see two problems with the sentence as is:

1) "increased distrust of police" doesn't seem to cover the full scope of the theory. Per the rest of the article, would it be better to say increased hostility toward police or incrased backlash against police or something to that effect?

2) As I understand it, the theory is generalizable, in the sense that it predicts crime rates would increase any time there is a backlash or "agitation" against police; it's not specific to the aftermath of Michael Brown's shooting in Ferguson, though the term (and theory?) were inspired by Ferguson.

Looking forward to hearing others' thoughts. Stonkaments (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding article

I think the article should make note of the similarities between the Ferguson effect and the de-policing hypothesis, and the long history of research and debate in this area since the 1960s, as argued in this paper [1] Stonkaments (talk) 02:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plan to Add

I am interested in expanding the research and criticisms subsections of the article with more updated sources regarding police brutality. V.a.PJHC (talk) 02:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Planned Changes

I intend to update the research and criticism sections of the Ferguson effect article. Currently, the article presents multiple research studies concerning the Ferguson effect and crime. However, these studies are all dated from 2016-2018. There are no studies included from more research years. I think there are many more journal articles related to the topic available especially considering the strength of the Black Lives Matter movement this past summer.

References: Campbell, Bradley A, Justin Nix, and Edward R Maguire. “Is the Number of Citizens Fatally Shot by Police Increasing in the Post-Ferguson Era?” Crime and delinquency 64, no. 3 (2017): 398–420. Alberto R. Gonzales; Donald Q. Cochran, "Police-Worn Body Cameras: An Antidote to the Ferguson Effect," Missouri Law Review 82, no. 2 (Spring 2017): 299-338. Ketron, Grace. 2019. How Media Covered Police Shootings During and After Ferguson: Framing Analysis of Officer-Involved Shootings In 2014 and 2016. https://doi.org/10.17615/1bv5-cy88 MacDonald, John M. “De‐policing as a Consequence of the So‐called ‘Ferguson Effect.’” Criminology & Public Policy 18, no. 1 (February 2019): 47–49. Wozniak, Kevin H, Brian R Calfano, and Kevin M Drakulich. “A ‘Ferguson Effect’ on 2016 Presidential Vote Preference? Findings from a Framing Experiment Examining ‘Shy Voters’ and Cues Related to Policing and Social Unrest.” Social science quarterly 100, no. 4 (2019): 1023–1038.

See my sandbox for more details! http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:V.a.PJHC/sandbox

V.a.PJHC (talk) 05:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Valerie, you made good use of an abundance of academic scholarship in your discussion of the Ferguson effect's existence, and your contributions are easily understandable and referenced. The only changes I would suggest are the tie-ins to the lead post and the names of your sections as I think they could be a bit more explanatory of your points. You could possibly also add an introductory statement to both of your subsections so the readers know what your intentions for summarizing the research studies and police publicity was. Good work! Ojc1 (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great work expanding the research section here. Your work is well sourced and well written. My only comment is that you could go back and link some of the people and places you reference in order to connect this article to other places in Wikipedia. Otherwise though, nice job! Emilyp99 (talk) 02:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New source

Hi folks, here is a new source which seems relevant. MonsieurD (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality dispute

@FormalDude: Why is this article's neutrality being disputed? Jarble (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jarble: The lede is too short to neutrally summarize the article. Additionally, the first sentence of the lede introduces the concept as if it is established/proven, but the article goes on to explain that the concept is disputed. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ineptly written

Stop summarizing every single article the author comes across. An encyclopedia is not a collection of summaries on articles... Synthesize it into a readable analysis. In its current form, nobody is going to want to read it. And those who do read it will be none-the-wiser, because the page is immensely muddied by the endless tedium. MrThe1And0nly (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]