Talk:Broken windows theory

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Law Enforcement B‑class

	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
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

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.

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]

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]