Jump to content

Talk:Department of Corrections (New Zealand)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fair use rationale for Image:Departmentofcorrections.gif

[edit]

Image:Departmentofcorrections.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

[edit]

Hi SimonLyall, I gather you have reverted much of the editing I have done on the Dept of Corrections page. You left this note. (rv to version as of 22:15, 8 October 2011. Changes since then highly NPOV. Some corrections need to be forwarded ported.)

What does 'forwarded ported' mean? I have spent hours and hours adding information to the version you have reverted to - which is simply a copy of information taken from the Depatment of Corrections website. The Department has a very biased POV and strong COI. Most of what is on that page is inaccurate. I would like to return it to the latest version of mine. If you have concerns about particular edits please inform me rather that just arbitrarily deleting weeks of work.Offender9000 (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"forwarded ported " (I should have written "forward ported") means updating the names of the minister and that Ray Smith was appointed in in 2010. As for specific problems I would suggest you look at the table of contents for your last version. It consists of almost nothing but negatives in the department's history. Have a look at other government department articles and compare what they have. I would suggest you:
  1. Be upfront as to why you are interested in this subject
  2. Focus on updating the facts that may be incorrect
  3. have a small controversies section (no more than 1/3 of the article) covering problems with the department and make sure you have good references in there.
If you feel that you can't be significantly neutral on this subject then I would suggets you avoid editing it. - SimonLyall (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that should read If you feel... rather than I you feel. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, corrected - SimonLyall (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not knowledgeable about what other Government Departments do. I am very knowledgeable about the Corrections Department because I work in the justice/corrections field. That's why I'm interested. I would suggest it is your lack of knowledge in this area that makes you think the version you have returned to is more accurate than mine.

How does one arbitrate between the version you're supporting - which comes directly from the Corrections Department website and is therefore inherently biased by their conflict of interest - and my version which quotes research and other sources throughout the entire text? The statements made by Corrections that they create a safe and humane environment are Departmental propaganda. Anyone who works in a NZ prison or has been an inmate in one will tell you this is not true. Offender9000 (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask for WP:MEDIATION. If this was simply a disagreement between two editors, you could have asked for a third opinion at WP:3O, but since I and two others expressed concern about your edits in December, and now a further two editors are involved, we are well past that point.-gadfium 05:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the subject of bias, I would like to ask you, Offender9000, whether you have a conflict of interest with the webpage http://www.flyingblind.co.nz/, which appears as reference a number of times in the changes you made but appears to be an advertisement for a book, rather than a independent source. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of Flying Blind. My edits contained over 100 footnotes and only a handful pointed to Flying Blind.

Years of working in prisons combined with other research I conducted for the book is what qualified me to write the book and make informed comments about the Corrections Department. The edits and page I created are far more accurate than the current version of the page which is written by someone in the Corrections Department and simply copied onto wikipedia by someone else. Isn't that a breach of the wikipedia rules? So far in this conversation, you have consistently avoided doing anything about the bias that exists in the current version you have reverted to. Offender9000 (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added an amended piece about the growth of the Department. It is entirely factual, contains numerous citations and not one linked to Flying Blind. If you choose to delete it for some reason please explain why. Offender9000 (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with references using flying blind, particularly if they give a page number. I take issue with references using a website that's just advertising material for flying blind. I acknowledge that I've avoided talking about bias in the current version of the webpages; mainly because you're the only person who seems to see this bias and (as you've just admitted) you're the author of a book which appears to be intensely critical of the subject. If you seriously believe that corrections content has been cut and pasted into this article in violation of copyrights/policy, I suggest you follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Copyright_Problems#Instructions_for_listing_text-based_copyright_concerns. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added a section on penal populism in NZ. Any concerns Stuart?Offender9000 (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, the article is about a government department. It is not about "Everything I think is wrong with New Zealand's criminal justice and prison system". and I'm not suggesting that you create such an article either. I've reverted. - SimonLyall (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at [1] I'd raise the following concerns:

  1. many turns-of-phrase are emotive / POV yet another, Pushed mainly by scaremongering in the media, etc
  2. The Department faces an ever-growing prison population seems to directly conflict with Later that year justice sector forecasts showed a drop in the projected prison forecast for the first time.
  3. facts and figures are referenced to newspapers when they can probably be sourced from the department itself (unless you believe that the department cannot be trusted to accurately report facts and figures, in which case the article should say so, giving a reference for justification).
  4. many proper nouns are not linked that probably should be the Labour Government (link to a specific one), Victoria University, EPA, Serco, etc. I generally link everything except country names (and sometimes even then).
  5. there doesn't seem to be a strong connection between penal popularism and the department, except in so far as penal popularism is responsible for keeping the prisons full. If there is a strong connection it needs to be laid bare; if not penal popularism probably deserves only a paragraph in this article. See also Wikipedia:Coatrack.
  6. (related to the previous) given that the department speaks/writes/publishes a reasonable amount of material you completely fail to mention whether the department has mentioned any of this or has a position on; nor whether it's the kind of thing that falls within a department's remit to have a position on.
  7. most references are Wikipedia:Bare_URLs.
  8. in discussion of money, it's not always clear whether current or contemporary units are in use.
  9. it seems clear that politicians are involved in this. I always try and get first-person quotes, un-muddied by the media. I suggest that you search http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/Debates/ for good quotes from the respective horses' mouths.
  10. the last paragraph seems to present what seem to be the same numbers in three different ways. I'd suggest a table for the figures and a separate paragraph relating to the point being made.

Of these things (5) is probably the main reason why your content was previously reverted and (1) and (6) close behind. (2) seems like sloppy writing. Most of the rest are just areas for improvement. On the positive side:

  • http://www.bsa.govt.nz/decisions/show/2578 is a solid gold source (very independent, very authoritative, very considered; a very WP:RS), alas it doesn't mention the topic at hand (which is the Department)
  • The grammar and writing clearly reflect someone who's written before

I hope you find this feedback helpful. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly SimonLyall and I have very different styles here, but I won't fault his actions. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I have reduced it to one small para and added it into the section on the Growth of the Department. Is that alright?

I have to say I totally disagree with you that "there doesn't seem to be a strong connection between penal popularism and the department, except in so far as penal popularism is responsible for keeping the prisons full. If there is a strong connection it needs to be laid bare." The connection is very strong as penal populism creates the demand for more and more prisons and the expansion of the Department. The on-going expansion of the Department depends on this - at an ever increasing cost to the NZ taxpayer. How strong/bare do you need the connection to be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Offender9000 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

penal populism is a political dynamic in NZ national politics; it involves a number of lobby groups, political parties and media outlets. To the best of my knowledge the Department doesn't have a policy on the core issues fuelling penal populism or penal populism itself and as an operation unit rather than a policy unit has no remit to have a policy on these issues. As such penal populism is more related to any number of articles than it is to this one. Yes the department is effected by the end results of the dynamic, but is not involved in the dynamic itself. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart: In regard to what the Department has policies on, you appear to be misinformed. In 2001 the Department released a policy document called About Time which contained 10 different strategies aimed at reducing the prison population in NZ. The document highlighted Finland's success at reducing their prison population by adopting strategies which encouraged Finnish politicians not to use incidents of violent crime as means of adopting 'tough on crime' policies and also encouraged the media to not sensationalise crime. Finnish media even agreed to regularly publish education pieces informing the public about evidenced based penal policy - and in particular that prisons do not act as a deterrent to crime. About Time encouraged the use of similar strategies in New Zealand. But you deleted what I wrote about Finland....Offender9000 (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted nothing from this page. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

God this conversation is hard to follow. So Simon Lyall deleted/reverted it. It feels like the two of you are ganging up on me and you both have completely different ideas about what is acceptable. Its hard to get any consistency when I'm dealing with two people at once.Offender9000 (talk) 08:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most of what Stuart says, he however is much more polite than me. I'll say the following however:
Not just links to bare URLs. Fix this before you do anything else.

I don't really understand this information you've provided about links - other than to put more information in as opposed to a 'bare url'. Offender9000 (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please don't think that we are not going to notice if you slowly restore your previous version of this article line by line. We notice but (unlike you) we have other articles we are keeping an eye on so we are not going to give you feedback every day.

I'm happy for you to edit and provide feedback about what I write - provided you don't work for Corrections. What pissed me off is that you guys let me carry on writing for six weeks before you got involved and then reverted everthing. Lets do it line by line.Offender9000 (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's ambiguous. I assume from the statement above that you are employed by the Department but that you claim this is not your motivation...? Are you employed by the Department?Offender9000 (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart wrote that "The Department faces an ever-growing prison population seems to directly conflict with Later that year justice sector forecasts showed a drop in the projected prison forecast for the first time." It was ever-growing until 2011 when justice sector forecasts showed a drop for the first time. How would you word this? Offender9000 (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)?[reply]

(a) As I've already explained, I would be writing this (b) if I were writing it I'd use graphs based onfrom stats NZ, who have really pretty good data in this area. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a short section of Criticisms. Does that meet your standards...?Offender9000 (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the sentence stating that the Prison Service "provides a safe and humane environment". There was no citation to back it up - and never will be, because it simply isn't true. Offender9000 (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference formatting

[edit]

Please do not put in bare URLs for references. Here is the format you need to use. You have to fill in each field like I have this one:

<ref>{{cite web |title=New Corrections boss |publisher=The New Zealand Herald |url=http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10689526 |accessdate=2012-02-04}}</ref>

Have a look at the references section. It is the 2nd one. You'll see the difference. - 22:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:OUTING

[edit]

Will be respected on this talk page Any further attempts to out other users will result in blocking. Discuss the article, not each other. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COATRACK issues

[edit]

I made a fairly substantial removal of content earlier today because the artisl was being used as a WP:COATRACK and a borderline attack article, as it has been in the past. The issue is not about sourcing but about tone and balance. I'd invite editors to read Adolf Hitler and note the impartial tone, lack of loaded terminology, reliance on neutral sources and overall balance. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comparison with the article on Hitler is not helpful to your cause. The following is from the Wikipedia page about Hitler: Hitler's foreign and domestic policies had the goal of seizing Lebensraum ("living space") for the Germanic people. He oversaw the rearmament of Germany and the invasion of Poland by the Wehrmacht in September 1939, which led to the outbreak of World War II in Europe. Under Hitler's direction, in 1941 German forces and their European allies occupied most of Europe and North Africa. These gains were gradually reversed after 1941, and in 1945 the Allied armies defeated the German army. Hitler's supremacist and racially motivated policies resulted in the systematic murder of eleven million people, including nearly six million Jews.

I would hardly call this impartial or lacking in loaded terminology and there are no sources quoted at all for any of this information. In fact, this is very critical of Hitler calling him (quite accurately)a supremacist with racially motivated policies who killed 6 million Jews. I don't think there is anything in the material about the Corrections Department which you want to delete which is anywhere near as critical in its tone.

Please point to specific statements in the facts and figures material which you think relate to tone. Rather than delete entire passages, any unbalanced statement can be reworded. Offender9000 (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. This site is intended to be a neutral, factual summary of knowledge. If you have not yet, please read Wikipedia:Five pillars. Much of your contribution is unsuitable for Wikipedia, being non-neutral, referenced to books so obscure they can't be found in Amazon (e.g. "Flying Blind"), or original research (statements such as "Corrections appears to be in breach of its statutory obligations" are journalism, not encyclopaedic material). Try, if you can, to summarise your points in a short paragraph, with sourcing to mainstream sources, and see how that goes. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) You seem to misunderstand the book Flying Blind. Currently there is not a single reference to it in the entire page. 2) Flying Blind is so mainstream it has been cited by the New Zealand Court of Appeal. 3) You make a huge assumption if you think all books published by Amazon are neutral.And I would be surprised if Wikipedia has a policy that all references in Wikipedia have to be listed with Amazon. 5) If you aren't happy with the phrase "Corrections appears to be in breach of its statutory obligations" just say so and I will change it. There is no need to remove an entire section on the basis of one sentence. Offender9000 (talk) 07:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is, of course, an exemplar of the problem. The reference should be to the judgment, which merely refers to Mr Brooking's recent publication on this subject. which could refer to one of the many articles at ADAC. The judgement says We direct the Registrar to send a copy of this judgment and Mr Brooking's affidavit to the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections for consideration. How the press gets from there to Dismayed judges have ordered Corrections bosses to read an expert's book on rehabilitation after being shocked... isn't clear to me, since the affidavit at 8 pages is appears to be much shorter than the book at 312 pages. This is why we attempt to go for authoritative sources, particularly about topical and currently political issues. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strange you should mention Flying Blind. In this edit, User:Offender9000 said they were the author. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Roger_Brooking in these edits User:Offender9000 says that ADAC (the publisher of Flying Blind) is his company, making it self published. See also WP:SELFPUB. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what needs to be added?

[edit]

Offender9000: Rather than adding stuff yourself, please tell us what is wrong with the current article and what you think need to be added. Just broadly, what topics? not specific wording. - SimonLyall (talk) 09:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • You guys are obviously having a dispute here, yet nobody in asking for any kind of WP:DR that I can see. I have therefore protected the page from editing for a week. Please use this time to resolve these disputes, and consider soliciting outside help, that is often the best way to resolve such matters. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Until the two other contributors who keep reverting the information I am trying to add openly acknowledge that they work for the Corrections Department and have a conflict of interest, I don't think it is possible to resolve anything. Offender9000 (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On neutrality, wikipedia says: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage. " They just ignore this.Offender9000 (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back to SimonLyall's original point about what needs to be added, I'd say:

  • information about predecessor organizational units, back to the provincial days, their heads and activities.
  • images of relevant buildings and people
  • information relating to the prison officers' union
  • well-sourced information relating to the conditional clauses in the section of the act relating to rehabilitation (probably need to rely on hansard and contemporary press releases).
  • comprehensive list of appellate-level legal cases they've been involved in, sources to court websites for pleadings / judgements (only available publicly for the recent ones)
  • links to, or graphs of, stats for funding, prisoners, etc as far back as possible (ideally to WWII).
  • replacing (where possible) popular press references with primary source references (hansard, scoop, stats nz, etc).

Stuartyeates (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this report looks like another really good source. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VANDALISM issues

[edit]

Mr Yeates response in the section above proves my point - about the need to "not remove sourced information solely on the grounds that it seems biased". Neither Mr Yeates nor Mr Lyall have acknowledged this request or the need to follow wikipedia policies on neutrality. I have asked them a number of times to provide constructive feedback on information I have provided. Instead, they have repeatedly reverted entire sections of information without explanation which constitutes vandalism. They both have a conflict of interest as a result of which they think any information seemingly critical of the Corrections Department has to be removed - even though that information mostly comes from the Corrections department's own research and is posted on Corrections website. I am new to wikipedia and I don't understand how to use the warning mechanisms that wikipedia has. If I did, I would issue them with a formatted wikipedia warning for vandalism.

In regard to the information that Mr Yeates wants to add. Go ahead if you wish - be constructive and add material. Just stop deleting/reverting my contributions. Otherwise, I think you and Mr Lyall should be blocked for vandalism. Offender9000 (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(a) I have never removed sourced information solely on the grounds that it seems biased (b) we have provided constructive feedback on a number of occasions (c) with have >1000 edits, you are not "new to wikipedia"---just apparently indifferent to learning the house style and local conventions (d) please provide on-wiki diffs that support your contention that "Mr Yeates" is an appropriate way to refer to me, or remove them (e) I have no idea how how my comments above prove your point; maybe you could restate this proof clearly? (f) you claim that we have a conflict of interest, previously you have claimed we're employees of the department; please give evidence of these claims or withdraw them. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest

[edit]

I have gone through this, after the posting to WP:COI/N. I am quite clear that Offender9000 has a COI and his edits are highly POV. There are also some issues in the version prior to his edits. Details posted here. I am an uninvolved editor and not an admin. Babakathy (talk) 09:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enough of the edit warring

[edit]

Ok guys, I've protected the article again. I could just as easily have liberally handed out some blocks to the edit warriors as you have been more than adequately warned about this already. I again repeat that if you are unable to resolve these issues by discussing amongst yourselves, you should seek some form of WP:DR such as requests for comment or the dispute resolution noticeboard. Work it out. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There has been considerable discussion at Wikipedia:COIN#Department_of_Corrections_.28New_Zealand.29, which should have been prominently linked to from here. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, although I commented there a while ago, I hadn't been watching it in the meantime. After reviewing the conversation there I believe a different course of action is warranted. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotected User(s) blocked.. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Defamation

[edit]

I note that this article is under mediation and that there has been considerable debate by several editors. However, I am concerned that some of the statements made in the article could be considered defamatory to living persons - see WP:Libel. I express this opinion primarily to ensure that those editing take a balanced approach when citing criticism of the Department's staff - see WP:NPOV. A number of the issues raised as concerns about the Department's behaviour are valid and were well documented in the local media. There are also reports from a number of investigations into the various incidents, but these need to be cited in a more balanced manner.

Since it appears to be an issue in the discussion and for the benefit of all - I have no connection to the Department, nor do I have any link to its staff. NealeFamily (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Department of Corrections (New Zealand)

[edit]

Just noting here for any interested parties that there is a request for mediation regarding the content of this article. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New content

[edit]

Forging link to an orphan page:

In 2010, American-born Jason Palmer became the only prison guard to die on active duty.

Infobox

[edit]

I've reverted an edit that removed the info box. As far as I can tell it is consistent with the WP:MOS. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still mystified about about what the problem is/was with the Infobox. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

[edit]

I intend to restore the NPOV tag. The recent attempt at mediation failed and as far as I can see none of the issues have been resolved, settled or significantly progressed. Thoughts? Stuartyeates (talk) 02:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We did make progress, just not much. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we made a lot of progress.

1) We established that where there are concerns about neutrality, WP policy encourages the addition of material to provide balance rather than deletion.

2) It was also established that SimonLyall has difficulty accepting alternative points of view to his. He withdrew from mediation rather than concede that WP states: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopaedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage."

SimonLyalls unwillingness to accept this does not alter the fact that it is WP policy. Offender9000 (talk) 07:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very difficult to believe than an experienced editor such as User:SimonLyall would behave in the manner you describe and see nothing in that user's recent contribution history to support this. I would however suggest that said contribution history is very much in keeping with someone who has a busy life outside Wikipedia and does not have hours spare to indulge in circular debates. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The tag should stay as long as the "Criticisms" section is in its current form. At the moment it is extremely one-sided, in particular the paragraph which claims that "...Corrections is in breach of its statutory obligations..." (This appears unsourced and quite possibly original research). The section's content should either be balanced by other criticism from groups such as the Sensible Sentencing Trust, and/or references to the 1999 referendum, or (preferably) removed entirely. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of any opposition I have restored the POV tag. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to Criticism sections, WP says: "The best approach to incorporating negative criticism into the encyclopedia is to integrate it into the article, in a way that does not disrupt the article's flow. The article should be divided into sections based on topics, timeline, or theme – not viewpoint. Negative criticism should be interwoven throughout the topical or thematic sections. Creating a "Criticism" section exacerbates point-of-view problems, and is not encyclopedic."

I therefore propose to move the information which is currently in the Criticism section and incorporate it under the section about the Department's Statutory Responsibilities - since that what the criticisms are actually about. In the process, I will modify the information about the Department being 'in breach of its statutory obligations'. Offender9000 (talk) 07:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The neutrality of this article has now been improved by the addition of 'positive' information - mainly from Corrections Department sources. 'Positive' information has been added in all three sections under Statutory Responsibilities. In regard to providing a safe prison environment, this sentence has been added: "The Department continues to improve prison fencing and other security measures so that the rate of escape from prison is at now at an all time low." In regard to suicides, this sentence has been added: "The development of a comprehensive Suicide Prevention Strategy may help reduce prison suicides and the Department said it would publish a strategy in 2012." In regard to rehabilitation, information about increased availability of drug treatment and other rehabilitation programmes offered in prison has been added. Under the requirement to provide information to the Courts, this sentence has been added: "The Department provides thousands of psychological and pre-sentence reports to the Courts and to the Parole Board each year." Hopefully, this will satisfy those who have concerns about the neutrality of the article. Offender9000 (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have not addressed the main issue I have raised which is that you are still accusing an entire organisation of criminal behaviour, previously completely unsourced and now sourced only to a self-published polemic. I have removed the most egregious tinfoil-hattery, reinstated the NPOV tag and will shortly see if anyone on the NZ project boards has enough free time to attend to the rest of the clean-up. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing a government department of failing to live up to its statutory obligations is not an accusation of criminal behaviour. It is not an offence under the Crimes Act. It is simply a dereliction of duty - possibly subject to potential sanctions by the State Services Commission. But since the 'accusation' has now been removed anyway, this point becomes a red herring. Since you have removed the 'accusation', and this was your main concern about the neutrality of the article, there no longer seems to be any concern about neutrality. I intend to remove the NPOV tag. Offender9000 (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

COI

[edit]

I am concerned that Offender9000 has inserted references of controversial reliability, including self-published works, that he himself has written. In my view that is a clear conflict of interest. Can I suggest that these references be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VNTrav (talk • contribs) 09:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and have therefore (again) removed the paragraph ref to the Scoop press release. The release is self-published - and has been inserted on this article (and restored) by its author. Clarke43 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When Offender9000 restored the reference to Flying Blind, he made the comment that it is published by First Edition Ltd. A quick check of that company states it is "New Zealand's leading self-publishing house with over 500 titles published annually..." [2] - which support VNTrav's position.
He keeps putting references to his own self-published book about the justice and criminal sectors in NZ on a range of pages. This is self-promoting, but considering he also works in the sector and gets funding from the Courts shows a clear COI. This is not tolerated with other editors - why is it with him? Clarke43 (talk) 08:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I am well aware of the COI here (I did the initial review at WP:COIN), I am concerned there may be a baby & bathwater issue here: Last several edits have removed a huge amount of material, and I would like to suggest reconsidering edit: the section on Statutory responsibilities had useful information, which could perhaps be edited down for brevity and POV. Whilst the original text was not neutral, these is enough material in there to clean it up I think.

Those wholesale deletes of information have been done in an attempt to quickly try and re-balance articles and remove the major POV issues you mention. Unfortunately this is not the only article such 'crash' edits have had to have been performed on. I'm all for someone sitting down and re-editing material that has been removed so that is balanced and re-inserting it. It looks like it will be a big job however..... Clarke43 (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Department of Corrections (New Zealand). 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) 01:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Department of Corrections (New Zealand). 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) 14:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Department_of_Corrections_(New_Zealand)&oldid=1201460223"