Talk:Preventing school violence

This article was nominated for deletion on 10 July 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to School violence.

Saving page

If I don't have time to review this or add additional sources today or tomorrow I'll try to get to it next week. I think more can be done to address this issue than what has already been done. I do agree that it would be beter to provide a better variety of sources. If no one else does so I'll try to find some over then next week or two. Some of the fact tags added are backed up by existing sources and I will check for page numbers when I get the chance. If I don't get to review and revise it before Monday I'll probably remove the delete request to give myself a little more time. Thanks Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not merge it into School violence (which already has a section on prevention)? Alarics (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just posted something on your user page. That would work too but I thought there was enough for a page of its own and there is more that could be added. Zacherystaylor (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to take a closer look at this article over the next week or so and try to incorporate some of the material from the School violence article in it. I think they should be closely linked to each other even if they don't get merged. I originally intended this for the School shooting page with an intro there. This is why I didn't look too closely at the prevention section until I prepared most of what I put in. Some of the material that was rejected as original research came from the sources that I used and I think it should be put back but I'll review it first and try to phrase it better if necessary. For now I'm going to remove the delete tag. If the consensus is to merge and redirect that can be done later. I will also look for additional sources to use. Good dayZacherystaylor (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The entry on preventing school violence should be linked to the school violence page when the preventing-school-violence entry is better sourced. As it stands now, the preventing-school-violence entry is weak. It relies too much on secondary sources. The contributors have not read the primary source material on preventing school violence. When the preventing-school-violence entry improves, then a link to the school violence entry is conceivable. The quality of the entry on preventing school violence needs to improve substantially.Iss246 (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belatedly agreeing with Alarics about merging into School violence, but for now it can be a standalone article. In fact, even after the merge, I'd like to see a summary there and a fuller treatment here.

I agree with that in fact that is what I tried to do but the link was deleted. I have planned more work on this and see no reason to withhold the link in fact I think it may help attract more editors to improve and expand the article. Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there are controversies about the most effective ways to prevent school violence. One controversy is about whether forbidding (or permitting) teachers or other staff to bring guns on school grounds is a "good idea". This opens up a big can of worms, because there are those who say guns only kill people (see gun control) and others who say that showing a gun prevents violence (see gun rights).

Another issue is whether children should be made to face the consequences of their actions: e.g., if a child assaults another, should we then send both children to "conflict resolution" or punish the assailant with detention, suspension and/or jail?

It might be difficult to describe these controversies, unless writers on both sides of them are willing to acknowledge the existence of the other side and the percentage of parents and educators who hold the various views.

Conflict of interest note: I have taught in private schools where I had a nearly unlimited right to expel children from my classes based on my own personal standards of behavior. I didn't allow hitting (others), grabbing (other people's things) or teasing. I found that by being strict on these points right from the start, my classes gradually became peaceful, harmonious and even quite jolly. So please stop me if I seem to favor "strictness" when I contribute to this article; I promise to be as fair as I can when describing "permissiveness". --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other issues you have addressed including guns in school have been addressed on other pages including School violence and School shootings although I'm not convinced they have been addressed adequately. Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not original research

I have reviewed this article again and I don't believe it is original research at all. I have based it primarily on the work of two authors Gavin de Becker and Alice Miller. I have reflected what they said and sourced it. Would you please elaborate on why you object. There is plenty to indicate that child abuse is a major contributing cause to school violence from many sources including the ones I cited and that community organizations could do a lot to prevent it. Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm restoring most of the section about child abuse except for the portion about Hawaii since I don't have a source to cite on hand. that came from the Boston Globe but it is an old article and I don't have the date. There is plenty of evidence that child abuse is a contributing factor to violence later in life including at school. In addition to the sources I have cited there are dozens of stories about people who were abused as children going on to commit violence in school and as adults. If you have objections please state what they are. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am restoring the warning signs provided by Gavin de Becker and part of the heading. These are not TV commentators I am citing as sources they are people who have researched the subject. The alternative to there being multiple contributing causes is that there is no cause or that there is one and only one cause. TV commentators have at time made it sound like this is true but researchers who have studied it have concluded that there are multiple contributing causes. This is the basic facts going to the organization of the article as well as the subject. I have also added one other source, 2 co-authors (James Garbarino and Ellen deLara: "And words can hurt forever: how to protect adolescents from bullying, harassment, and emotional violence" 2002) who have also researched the subject. I believe these may be the best and most organized source and I'll add more from them next week. If there is any doubt about what I'm doing please check the sources, I think you'll find I am reflecting them accurately. Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to use sources that conducted research into the subject for the purpose of solving problems in the most effective way possible. There are other books in the library that could be used for this purpose. Most of the researchers that I have looked at agree on most of the basics and support each others work. I'm not sure what would be so controversial about Alice Miller. It was a little harder to read than the other books but they seem to make many of the same points. I have found that the information available from TV is for the most part very bad and wouldn't recommend it on this subject. TV commentators seem to be more interested in getting ratings than doing research. There are also many books that are designed to support a particular ideology. If this doesn't involve solving problems in the most effective way possible I would consider it counterproductive. However Wikipedia rules don't forbid this and it is helpful to sort through different points of view so if someone wants to add counterpoints I certainly won't object. also I have added a section about drug abuse. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about Gavin, but Alice Miller is not reliable per se; only her published research in peer-reviewed journals, and, to a lesser extent, her books which are not "self-help" books but are published by reputable scientific publishers, may be usable as references. Her self-help books are not sufficiently "scientific" (or even necessarily reviewed) to be used as references. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have already pointed out somewhere that Alice Miller is very controversial stuff. Many would see her views as frankly extremist. Alarics (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC

Organizations

Zachery Taylor wrote: "It can also be argued that youth organizations such as the YMCA and the Boy Scouts might also be able to contribute to solutions." Anything "can be argued." What is the evidence for this? Just include the evidence.Iss246 (talk) 20:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't what I wrote that is a result of an edit by Alarics which I believe is partly justified. I have cited ligitimate sources which you have declared unacceptable. If you provide your own sources it might help some. Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Primary-source research on violence prevention is lacking

The entry needs to be rewritten to include major research on effective means for preventing school violence. The research on what works is lacking. There is too much reliance on a couple of secondary sources. Contributors need to read the important research on violence prevention. Contributors need to read the primary sources.Iss246 (talk) 01:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by the primary school sources on Preventing School Violence. The sources I read seem pretty good to me and this is better than what is currently on either the School Violence or the School Shooting page. I consider it easy to read productive and fairly well organized. If you or anyone else can improve it your welcome to but what is on wikipedia and what is in the traditional media as well isn't as good as the sources I have cited. Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is published research that evaluates the effects of programmatic changes in schools, classrooms, homes, etc. on school aggression. It is important to find research published in science and/or social science journals because those journals are refereed; the papers have to pass tests of quality in order to be published. The books cited are not refereed. Much of the research literature can be found by searching PsycINFO and Medline. Then when the searches of those two data bases identify papers bearing on the topic, you have to read the papers identified in those searches. You will also find articles that even show that some programmatic changes do not lead to a reduction in school violence (or, perhaps, exacerbate the problem). Moreover, the sources Zachery Taylor cites are not better than the sources in the school violence section. Frankly, the sources he cites don't measure up because they are not from refereed journals. If the sources he cites, themselves cite papers from refereed journals, it is necessary for zacherytaylor to read the cited papers, and report on the cited papers, provided the cited papers are relevant. The sources cited in the school violence entry come from a search of the relevant literature. They are primary sources. That is all I am going to say about primary sources.Iss246 (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would welcome any input from those published research papers that you have available. If I have time I will check myself. This doesn't change the fact that the sources that I have cited are qualified professionals with Phds who studied the subject. I have never been told that experts in the field can't be used on wikipedia. If wikipedia was limited to the criteria you cite it wouldn't have much if anything on it. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having a PhD is not a qualification (I have a PhD and a post-doctoral degree as well). We don't argue from authority. We argue from evidence. The evidence comes from quality studies published in refereed journals. We don't use other people's summaries of those studies. We have to read those studies ourselves to assimilate them. I have found that other people's summaries can distort the results (for example, in a preferred direction).

Now I turn to Zachery Taylor's remark, "If wikipedia was limited to the criteria you cite it wouldn't have much if anything on it. Good day". That is baloney. Wikipedia is only as good as its sources. The best Wikipedia entries use quality sources. There are a great many quality sources out there. You have to read, and assimilate them.Iss246 (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having a PhD and researching the subject does qualify for mention in wikipedia. These sources cite their own sources which you are free to check. I fail to see what your objections are most of what I'm am trying to do is argue against contributing causes to violence like child abuse, bullying, negligence etc. If you have ligitimate contributions to make I see no problem I wouldn't object. there is plenty of material about violence but very little about preventing it and that is what I'm trying to change. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I differ with you. You've got it wrong. Your exaggerated Britishism "Good day" does not let you off the hook. You have to rely more on primary sources. I don't want to contribute an entry that you insist on ensuring that it remain weak. The weaknesses include over-reliance on secondary sources, the absence of your combing through the research literature, and your over-reliance on opinions. For example, what is the evidence that joining the Boy Scouts protects against aggressive conduct in school? Given what I know about the epidemiologic literature on violence, it is possible that if a relation between Boy Scouts membership and reduced aggression exists, it is likely that self-selection accounts for the relation rather anything else. But I don't know for sure. A review of the primary-source research literature may hold clues. If you include Boy Scouts membership, it is incumbent upon YOU--not me--to identify the evidence.

There is a problem with expressions such as "some argue." Who argues? For what reason? Or "some observers believe." What observers believe? Why do they believe. That is not good writing.

You also want me to do what you refuse to do, go to the empirical literature on prevention and intervention. But if you carefully read the school violence entry, which I mostly wrote, you will observe that I already read much of the literature on prevention and intervention, and cited many papers from that literature. If you are going to write about that literature, you should read the primary source material, and not other people's summaries. That is a sign of indolence.

Your writing "These sources cite their own sources which you are free to check" is more baloney. You wrote much of the Preventing School Violence entry, then you read the sources. If you want a solid Wikipedia entry, you have to be more energetic. Right now the site is wanting.Iss246 (talk) 22:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was I who added in the phrase "some argue" in an attempt to turn a bald statement of opinion into something a bit more NPOV. Alarics (talk) 07:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is better to source the assertions. Those kinds of assertions detract from the entry.Iss246 (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read several sources who have researched the subject and came to many of the same conclusions. This involves early interventions prevention of abuse and bullying and participation by community organizations. I still fail to see what you are objecting to. My use of the term good day wasn't meant as anything more than politeness. I did not claim that joining the boys scouts alone would prevent school violence just that the people who run it can contribute to solutions. There are some things that those who research the subject appear to agree on and that is mostly what I am trying to put into the article. I don't see why there should be any doubt about preventing child abuse bullying and community participation. Some statements about punishments are warranted as you and others have claimed and I will keep an eye out for sourced information. Good Bye Zacherystaylor (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reprise: Primary-source research on violence prevention is lacking

To make this site worthwhile, the preventing school violence site should include primary sources. That is to say, it should include articles from refereed journals (the articles were vetted) that evaluate the efficacy of violence prevention programs. You should read those articles and include some short description of their findings.

When you read someone who reports on original studies, you learn about the original studies second-hand. There could be a little distortion. Bias. GOOD SCHOLARSHIP requires reading original sources. Our best high school and college teachers got us to do that. I have nothing against the writers you cite. But they should play a smaller role in this entry. It is critically important for this entry that you read, and report on, PRIMARY SOURCE evaluations on anti-aggression programs (e.g., evaluations of Olweus's anti-bullying program, Dolan's evaluation of the implementation of the Good Behavior Game in elementary schools, the work of the Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, and so on). Rather than read someone else's summary of the relevant research reports, read the original research reports yourself on the programs that are the bedrock of violence prevention in schools. And write about what you read unfiltered by someone who produced a secondary source. That is what the writer of the school violence Wikipedia entry did. Then the preventing school violence entry will improve. Keep a few secondary sources. But build the entry around the important primary sources. That is what makes the cite credible. I think I have made myself clear. That is the way to improve the entry.Iss246 (talk) 01:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the work my sources provide is their own some of it is from many other sources. Considering primary sources is a good idea but limiting the article to them would mean that I never did anything without an enormous amount of work. I have mainly tried to define the basics and still fail to see your objections. No one has attempted to limit me to sources aproved by one individual before. Just because they disagree with what I say. You haven't cited one source that says that Child abuse, bullying and drug use are not contributing factors nor have you cited one source that said that community organizations can't contribute to the solution. I admit there is more work that needs to be done but I'm not going to argue about every basic fact. What I have provided is better than what was on wikipedia and the morte time I spend discussing it with you the less I spend doing something constructive I have little enough time as it is. Zacherystaylor (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "Considering primary sources is a good idea but limiting the article to them would mean that I never did anything without an enormous amount of work." I DID NOT say to limit the article to primary sources. I said that the entry should have more primary sources. Secondary sources should have more of a background role. Our best teachers told us that primary sources are the key to good scholarship.

And YES. It is an enormous amount of work. If you want a good Wikipedia entry, a great deal of work is required. My advice is to read one primary source per day, and add one sentence about it to the entry each day. After several days, go back and edit the sentences as more material accumulates. Then continue on adding one source a day, and going back periodically to edit to ensure the new writing coalesces into a coherent whole. I took that route in (re)constructing the school violence entry. The entry was inadequately sourced and the writing needed editing when I got to it. I wrote one or two sentences a day, periodically recycling back to edit and re-edit. You will be surprised. In as little as a month's time, the entry will be very much better.

You criticize me for not mentioning bullying. On the contrary, I mentioned bullying in connection to a bullying prevention intervention in the schools. The intervention is associated with Olweus. I urge you to read the primary-source research evaluating the success of the intervention and interventions like it.

With regard to child abuse, I don't sleight it. I think it would be a good idea to dig through the literature to find child-abuse prevention interventions that have been rigorously evaluated. If you find them, that could be a boon the to entry. It is likely that children who are abused are at risk for engaging in overly aggressive behavior in school. Research evaluating child-abuse prevention interventions is therefore important to include in the entry. I advance a similar argument about drug use. It would help the preventing-school-violence Wikipedia entry to include rigorously evaluated drug-use prevention research. Children and adolescents who abuse drugs are likely to be at higher risk for engaging in school violence or being victims of school violence.

I would also like to see rigorously evaluated research on community organizations' efforts to reduce school violence. There are likely to evaluations of those efforts in the psychology, sociology, education, and medical literatures.

As you can see, we are not that far apart in our views.Iss246 (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think you're confusing primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. I believe most of the sources here are either unreliable personal opinions or tertiary (survey) sources, reprising the results of (perhaps reliable) secondary sources. What we need are reliable secondary sources, such as peer-reviewed literature. (However, the "peer=reviewed" literature on recovered memories suggests that being peer-reviewed is not enough.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, a lot of supposedly "peer-reviewed research" is garbage. It is a pity that Wikipedia sets so much store by that criterion. Alarics (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur, I'm trying to be diplomatic. Moreover,the article could use much more primary source material.Iss246 (talk) 20:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic tag

I added this tag because the current page reads as highly unencyclopedic. See WP:NOTGUIDE, "Wikipedia is not an instruction manual".

I think the very name of this article is problematic: "Preventing school violence" is an appropriate name for a how-to guide, a prescriptive or nomative advocacy piece or essay. Appropriate wikipedia article topics are, of course the main article on School violence, but I cound imagine many good others, such as efforts to prevent school violence, causes of school violence, initiatives to prevent school violence, or advocacy surrounding school violence...or any other number of topics could be more encyclopedic articles, rather than prescriptive how-to guides, but covering most of the same material.

The article jumps right into advocacy/prescriptive statements in the initial paragraph. The first paragraph of any artictle should very clearly describe what the topic is and should be descriptive rather than prescriptive. Prescriptive statements can come later, in appropriate sections, but they must be clearly identified with WHO advocates such courses of action. Wikipedia cannot maintain a [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view] if we advocate courses of action--but we can include descriptions of anyone else advocating courses of action, when it is verifiable in reliable sources--and let that information speak for itself.

Phrases like "some argue that", or "some researchers", "some commentators", or "but some say", are extremely problematic when unsourced, but even when sourced they are not as encyclopedic as clearly identifying who is advocating, arguing, or saying something.

The article seems a tad spammy with the list of external links, many of which are not clearly identified as being related to the topic, and are not mentioned in the text (i.e. American Youth Soccer Association).

Let's start cleaning this up. I have even contemplated taking this to AfD but I am not sure how constructive it could be. I would actually prefer moving/renaming the page, and possibily moving/merging material both out of and into a new page.

Thoughts? Cazort (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything Cazort says. Alarics (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alarics wrote: I agree, a lot of supposedly "peer-reviewed research" is garbage. It is a pity that Wikipedia sets so much store by that criterion. Alarics (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, some peer-reviewed articles are poor. But many are not. And any of us can read the peer-reviewed article to form a judgment. The problem with secondary sources (and tertiary sources) is that they already formed the judgment for us. There are criteria a reader can use to form a judgment about violence prevention interventions. Was there random assignment or were the groups otherwise equated? Were there reasonably good measures of violence? Was the prevention program and control program implemented properly? And so on.

Making a blanket statement like "a lot of supposedly 'peer-reviewed research' is garbage" does not improve this entry. It is a good idea to review primary source material, and evaluate it.Iss246 (talk) 21:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disagreeing with you about sources (except that you keep saying primary sources when you mean secondary sources, the kind on which Wikipedia is mainly supposed to rely -- see WP:PSTS). I was just agreeing with Arthur Rubin that the fact that something is peer-reviewed does not of itself mean that it is reliable or good. Alarics (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I say primary sources, I don't mean secondary sources. I know the difference. I mean primary sources. Here is a primary source on school violence prevention. Grossman, D. C., Neckerman, H. J., Koepsell, T. D., Liu, P. Y., Asher, K. N., Beland, K., et al. (1997). Effectiveness of a violence prevention curriculum among children in elementary school: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 277, 1605–1611.

Furthermore, a journal article being peer reviewed, on average, is superior to many of the cited publications in this entry. Nothing is automatically good. But being peer-reviewed is an important sign to watch out for. As I said earlier, it is important to read peer-reviewed articles, and form a judgment.Iss246 (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PSTS says: "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." (....) "Secondary sources are at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their facts and opinions on primary sources, often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims.[3][4][5]

"Our policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims if they have been published by a reliable secondary source."

It seems to me that what you were trying to say is we need more secondary sources, and if so I am agreeing with you. You just have your terminology wrong. Alarics (talk) 22:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I call the article by Grossman et al. a primary source but you call it a secondary source. If we both agree that it is suitable the cite, then I don't care what we call it. I merely wanted Zachery Taylor to cite higher-quality, less-opinionated sources.Iss246 (talk) 23:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starting over

I'm going to try to start over. I consider very little of the discussion on this page productive. There appears to be more concern with appearing encyclopedic than there is in understanding the subject. Excuse me if I seem a little uncivil but there has been thinly disguised hostility on this page since I created it with little of what I would consider constructive criticism. First of all the reason I decided to contribute to this in the first place was because I was a little bit stunned by the closest thing to preventing school shootings on the school shooting page. Take a look at what is here and think about how encyclopedic that is. The closest thing to a solution on this page seems to be to arm teachers and shoot the students down at the last minute. Is this what you would call encyclopedic? I can't believe I'm the only person who thinks this is down right insane. Most other pages are not much better when it comes to prevention in most cases they have nothing at all a couple exceptions are Columbine High School massacre and School violence. The School violence page does a better job describing risk factors than how to prevent them in my opinion however that is an important first step. there is some reference to programs that are designed to help reduce violence but unless you are familiar with the source it doesn't tell people much. To be honest although it is legitimate prevention I suspect it may make confuse readers more than it educates them especially if they aren't familiar with the details behind efforts to "teach students social skills" or "restructuring educational systems". It might help to get input from people who aren't college educated to see if they understand this. Many of the people that might benefit from this are concerned parents.

There are better writers on wikipedia than me, so if anyone wants to try to improve the writing without diluting the content I wouldn't object but that doesn't seem to be what is happening hear. Some of the best writing isn't designed to target the people that need to understand this the most. What has happened on this page doesn’t seem to involve improvement and expansion but diluting and deleting. First some one changes some thing to words like “It can be argued that” Then someone comes along complains about problematic words and deletes. This page was originally targeted for deletion because it was original work which was clearly not true even in the beginning it had qualified sources. Since then I have added what I consider the best sources including James Garbarino, Ellen deLara and Joanne Scaglione. These are also the most recent sources and do the best job getting their point across to uneducated members of the public as well as educated members of the public, and they also have experience in the education field as teachers and researchers. the fact that the sources and research is improving since Columbine is a silver lining to that disaster. The only benefit I can imagine from that is to learn from it and figure out how to avoid having it happen again. I recommend that people read them especially if they are concerned about their reliability. The Bibliography is also important to the article since it effectively provides recommended further reading. These scholars do a better job getting their point across than I could.

First of all I'm going to address the name. The name of the article is about preventing school violence for what I consider a good reason. Prevention is more important than reporting on one incident after another. People are fed up with these disasters and they have heard enough about the details, many people would much prefer to here about how to avoid these disasters. These people might be more interested in reading it if they thought it would help them accomplish this goal. this is why I think the name should remain the same.

One objection is that wikipedia shouldn't address this at all but some have clearly disagreed with this the fact that there is something even if I don't think it is adequate indicates that there is a precedent for it. Some have argued that wikipedia shouldn't provide something that seems like a how to guide yet I have seen several things like that about simple things as well as more complicated things ranging from construction techniques to how to reduce energy which was turned into a wikibook. The best argument why there should be more about prevention is the fact that there is a list of over 100 school shootings in addition to over 200 school related attacks. For every shooting or attack listed on wikipedia I'm sure there are hundreds of milder problems that preceded them. To argue that wikipedia should list all these attacks and do little or nothing about prevention seems absurd. Wikipedia seems to have copied the typical behavior of the mass media which reports on one attack after another with no more than a token amount of prevention. The Mass media focuses much more attention on placing the blame and punishing people than prevention. However I will say that at least wikipedia doesn't resort to the absurd demagoguery used by many commentators in the mass media like Nancy Grace and Geraldo. In fact that is part of the problem the mass media is in a great position to contribute to the solution but instead I have no doubt that it is doing more to make it worse than to make it better. Not that I intend to add that to the article without sources, my point is that since wikipedia is edited by the people it has an opportunity to set a better example. In fact if they are going to list so many attacks I think there should be an obligation. Most of the most powerful organizations including the mass media and the government aren’t doing a competent job addressing this issue for one reason or another. The mass media is more interested in ratings and the government is controlled by politicians who are more interested in telling people what they want to hear so they can get reelected and accomplish their own goal. Wikipedia may be the most powerful institution that I know of that can use input from the general public and get across to a large number of people. It could be argued that this is what wikipedia is not supposed to be but even if it isn’t supposed to be that it may already be that. The rules often seemed to be designed to either put something in or forbid it depending on how they are interpreted. I looked at some of them and came to the conclusion that if they are used strictly they could easily cause gridlock which is what seems to be happening here. Is that what anyone wants? If there is one subject I would think people would want to avoid gridlock on it is this. What started out as a sincere attempt to make information available to the public that would help them understand the issue seems to have turned into an attempt to prevent solutions. I see enough of that in Washington.

Another problem is which version of this article are people criticizing? There have been several criticisms about phrases like "some people argue". These phrases were not in the original article which is why I'm creating an article on my own sand box or usersubpage as a practice sheet. You will be welcome to edit it if you think you can improve it however since this is not the official page I may revert them if I disagree. If I do that I’ll make a note of it so people will know there is disagreement.

As far as Alice Miller being unreliable or extreme I would like to know how people came to that conclusion and more important is it something that I have added in the article. If we allow deletion for everyone who disagrees there will be nothing left for sure. These are qualified experts which I have read and I get the impression that few others on this board have read. They are all published with some peer review and there is nothing extreme about preventing violence.

As for concerns that an enormous amount of work should be done I don’t entirely disagree with that but what I have started with is basics so obvious that all the qualified experts agree on them. In order to create a good article you start with the basics and build on it not tear it apart.

The complaint about external links is partially justified I intended to look closer and provide a better description of them before I created the page but to be honest I typed them in one day intending to follow up and forgot. I have a lot more on the list but don’t intend to add them until I check them and provide some organization and description to the best ones. Considering the response I’m getting here if there are good pages controlled by people who don’t have to get approval of anonymous people before posting things they will be in a better position to contribute to the solution than wikipedia assuming they do a good job.

Another problem seems to be that one person seems to be going around deleting links to the article and another is putting a tag saying it needs links to it. When you delete things it is a good idea to comment about it especially if you claim to be opposed to censorship. I think there should be a link to prevention every time there is a article about school violence in wikipedia as well as wikinews. This could set a much better precedent than the traditional mass media is setting and remind people that there is a way to avoid all these disasters if they pay attention to productive research instead of demagoguery.

As for the hard facts that can be confirmed this is difficult in this case but not impossible. The toughest thing may not be finding them if people take the time to read up but to convince people of them. To get to the point I’ll provide a brief description of what I believe the most obvious hard facts are even though I don’t intend to phrase it this way in the article.

There are multiple contributing factors to causing violence in school or elsewhere. The alternative is that there is one and only one cause or there are no causes. I would have thought this would be easy to understand but someone has changed this to opinion at one point and I changed it back.

These factors include child abuse, bullying, neglect, media violence, ignorance drug abuse, incompetent caretakers etc. Making a list of these factors will help and then preventing them will be the most important thing. This is supported by the sources I cited and many other good sources however they may not be supported by an enormous amount of demagoguery promoted by a lot of TV commentators who do little or no research but repeat the same things over and over playing on peoples emotions. Please read something that the mass media doesn't put in front of you. Excuse my if I seem abrupt but I just wanted to get some points accross so I could work on improving the article instead of arguing about it. -- Zacharystaylor, 20.30 on 7 July 2009.

You make it clear in the above that you are trying to push a line of argument or opinion, but that is not what Wikipedia is for. Basically, it is questionable whether the whole idea of an article called "Preventing school violence" is encyclopaedic, not least because it is highly likely to consist more of opinions than of facts. You say "There appears to be more concern with appearing encyclopedic than there is in understanding the subject"; but Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, and whether or not something is encyclopaedic must therefore be the first hurdle that any article has to cross if it is to be included. The fact that some other articles on other subjects may have managed to get into Wikipedia without being encyclopaedic (which I agree is probably true) - "how-to" guides, for instance, which seems to be what you are trying to produce here - is not a reason for having even more such. I think "School violence" might be, just about, an encyclopaedic subject, and I still would prefer "prevention" to be one section in that article. It should attempt to summarise different views from various "reliable sources" on the subject. One of these might conceivably be Alice Miller, if she has said anything specifically about the kind of school violence we are talking about, but if so it needs to be balanced with somebody else who is much less on the extreme liberal wing of the spectrum as regards attitudes to child discipline. For instance, she thinks that violence is caused by spanking, which most people regard as absurd nonsense. Alarics (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said before I find it hard to understand why prevention should be so controversial. There are a long list of violent events on wikipedia and a sectioin about arming teachers and the thing people are complainaing about is the article I am try to improve about prevention that mostly involves preventing child abuse, bullying and increasing community involvement. The claim that Alice Miller is an extremeist also confuses me since she is mostly in favor of improved child care and opposed to child abuse. The book I read by her doesn't mention spanking. I haven't addressed it in the article. However there is something about consistancy which I planned to add to the article. Everything I have put in this has been sourced. Miller and others did argue that uncontroled punishment can turn into child abuse. there is an enormous amount of data that says that children who are abused as a child are much more likely to become violent adults within the academic community it seems to go without any discent. Miller did argue that some subtle things that many people don't pay attention to may mean a lot to a small child. Many other researchers agree with her. This wouldn't result from a single incident but the cumalitative effect of a lot of incidents. Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Primary versus secondary sources

This is not a comment about the quality of the argument, but it appears there is confusion here. One of our core polices, WP:RS, says (quoting):

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources.

Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion. Wikipedia itself, although a tertiary source, should not be used as a source within articles.

Primary sources, on the other hand, are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research.

It's important to also read:

One other thing - some of the language I've seen above amounts to personal attacks. It would be nice if those were redacted by striking through them to show good faith, and although I do not intend to get involved in writing this article, I will warn anyone who makes any more personal attacks. Dougweller (talk) 12:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for backing up what I was trying to say earlier about primary and secondary sources. As for personal attacks, could you please identify which bits of language in all of the above you regard as personal attacks? I don't think I have been guilty of that, but I should like to be certain. Alarics (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto re personal attacks. I'm not sure whether any of my statements can readily be interpreted as personal attacks, but I didn't intend any. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review decision requested

I would like some input on whether or not the section on prevention should be improved not only on this article but in Wikipedia in general. It is my opinion that there is plenty of political activity on this but rational improvements have been prevented. There are routine comments about gun control many of which give equal or preferential treatment to gun rights advocates, memorials and political plugs but no more than a token amount of sourced material on prevention from qualified academic sources. I attempted to change this last spring but was met with a lot of opposition that called my edits advocacy despite the fact that I had academic sources and they neglected to refute other edits that appear to fit the true definition of advocacy. This article was merged to the School violence article without adding the material resulting in a virtual deletion. At the time it appeared to me that there were too many people more concerned about arguing so I gave up. If I thought my efforts would have done some good I would not have done so and might have spent more time doing work that was prepared in a way that would have been acceptable to Wikipedia. Some of the edits that weren't refuted on the grounds of advocacy include the following: this section on arming teachers, a comment from Ted Nugent and plugs for politicians. I don't object to these but if these should be allowed as I agree they should then more work on prevention should also be allowed. It is my opinion that very important information is being censored from Wikipedia and since there has been little response from within Wikipedia in the past few months even though I have posted requests for input on several different places over I have also created a web page addressing the subject. This isn't the way I would prefer to address the subject but if nothing else works this seems to be the way to go. If Wikipedia is going to provide hundreds of articles about violence they should allow more credible articles on violence prevention that will be more productive. Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The previous article read like an editorial. Specifics to your points:

There is no evidence that "gun control" reduces even gun violence; it clearly does not reduce violence in general. In fact, the actual evidence leans toward a greater increase of school violence over non-school violence in states in which guns are not allowed near schools. although probably not statistically significant.
The second paragraph in this section on arming teachers has no basis for inclusion, as it's solely his opinion, and his credentials do not specify that he is an expert. I don't actually want to delete it, because there may be a legitimate source for the information.
I lean toward removal of the entire Virginia_Tech_massacre#Political_response section, but what's there seems balanced. Ted Nugent is probably more notable than the local politicians.
I agree with you that the plugs for politicians should go.

If there were credible academic work on prevention, it should probably be included in the school violence article. I don't think there is, and I'm sure you didn't present any last time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gun control shouldn't be the most important part of prevention it should be the evidence of early abuse that leads to more extreme abuse. This is backed up by many academic sources some of which I cited on the article I proposed. If Gun control is presented it should be balanced there for I am reverting your edit on the school shooting page. There is room for improvement but not by deleting things you disagree with. I am not advocating that people I disagree with be censored and request that you do the same. Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it because it fails WP:RS, as the source is a gun expert, not a gun violence expert, and there seem to be no credentials to support it. I'll tag it as {{verify credibility}} for the moment, but I'd like to tag it {{failed credibility}}. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The specific paragraph should be discussed there, not here. It's just an op-ed piece by a person whose expertise is not established. I've put the 5 tags which I consider the minimum for disucssion in place (although the latter two should have {{failed verification}}, as well), rather than just removing it again, even though it clearly does not have a credible source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring article

I’m restoring this article after making a few changes and adding a couple new sources.

I’m doing this based on several rules which allow this.

Wikipedia is not censored.

Wikipedia tries to be neutral by providing both views. I am providing information that is backed up by the majority of the academic community including many psychologists. There are many more than the ones I cited that agree with this but I added the ones that focused most on children and school issues. There is plenty of information about other less reliable sources like the ones previously mentioned and providing credible sources shouldn’t be banned when political sources are allowed.

Wikipedia is not a poll supposedly. I have done a lot of work to prepare this and it is about an important subject and few if any of the people objecting made much if any attempt to look into the subject.

Be bold and other rules could be used to justify this. The rules aren’t meant to be strict and they rely on reasonable judgment. To allow hundreds of articles on violence and input from gun right organizations without allowing more than a token amount of input about preventing violence from academic sources isn’t reasonable judgment.

Furthermore the person who originally called for deletion has demonstrated a clear bias for gun rights. Instead of pointing this out I have been singled out as the problem despite the fact even if I do say so myself that my work is based on academic sources and a lot of other material is based on political sources that don’t do adequate research. Several of the articles on School shootings seem to be more concerned with protecting gun rights than with preventing violence. To censor material based academic sources based on political ideology isn’t what Wikipedia is supposed to be doing.

The rules can be interpreted in many ways. I can’t understand why there would be any objection over providing information that is designed to prevent violence based on credible sources yet there is. If there isn’t some improvement on this subject it will be the most extreme example of political censorship on Wikipedia I can imagine. If there were some attempt to do other work that is as good or better than what I have done I wouldn’t object. Nor will I object if there are sincere attempts to improve the article as usual. Zacherystaylor (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; I didn't see this before I reverted the article and left the note on your Talk page!

I think you'd have to meet the specific objections raised in the AfD before this could be an article again. Personally, I don't think that some of those objections could be easily met as this article is very essay-like. It's also very how-to like and just not very well written, IMHO. --ElKevbo (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]