Talk:Security lighting

merge
Re merge request: obviously I disagree. These are both very large subjects and can easily handle two articles, as I think my edit shows. The lighting article is already 20 kB. -- Securiger 18:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree! Keep it here, for what my vote is worth! 69.142.2.68 01:17, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

fact vs opinion
Are these statements facts, or opinions?


 * "security lighting is only useful at night"
 * "most household burglaries occur during the day"

To meet our Verifiability policy, I would like either (a) some less biased reference that confirms that they are true facts, or (b) some reference that gives evidence that these are merely opinions, or perhaps not entirely true.

Since the *only* reference we have at the moment claims that these things are true facts, my understanding of the "assert facts" policy WP:ASF is that this article must also assert that these things are true, at least until we get a reference that disputes them. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 02:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree, that was my reasoning for mentioning where this (IMHO) opinion was being given by, when it was being given (and not down in the Ref Sect). There seems some bias in an 'Astronomy Dark Skies' group saying that it reduces crime, saves money and, oh yeah, makes for great observations of the Stars. Personally, I feel there is a bell curve to cities/crime and thoes mentioned by britastro just so happen to be situated in the right place on that curve that they can have a lights out "policy". Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 07:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I see how that group would want everyone to *believe* that those statements are always true. And so I see how that group may be tempted by confirmation bias or wishful thinking or cherry picking. If the article has no reference that disputes that these statements are true, then the WP:NPOV policy requires the article to assert that these are facts rather than opinion. Is there *any* evidence at all that perhaps those statements are not always true, or are you shooting the messenger? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But there is the rub... where do you find a source that says "if the lights are out, you can't see the criminals" ? Should we do as WP:OBVIOUS says and just go ahead and say so, to dispute this section, based on an obvious truth? Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 23:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, go ahead and put Common knowledge into the article.
 * where do you find a source? Excellent question. But first let me point out that you seem convinced that the above statements are false, and now you are trying to cherry picking sources that say they are false. Forgive me for the rudeness, but have you considered that perhaps those statements might be true for some obscure, counter-intuitive, non-obvious reason? I am embarrassed by the number of things on the list of common misconceptions that I once was convinced was true.
 * Some possible ways to find a source:
 * The references already cited in this article.
 * The references cited at the end of some of the references cited in this article -- such as the The Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics; Percent distribution of burglaries known to police, By place and time of occurrence, United States, 1976-2007; Bruce Schneier: lighting; "Preventing crime at places"; "Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Parking Facilities."; the National Criminal Justice Reference Service; "University lighting: Deterrent to Crime", National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities "School lighting", etc.
 * United States Bureau of Justice Statistics
 * Perhaps you are convinced those statements are false because of something you've read -- Could you track down that source?
 * Google or some other web search engine
 * --68.0.124.33 (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 01:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps you could provide a Cite for the disputed claims, from more than 1 source, to back the claims of (what I am going to claim as) biased sources. So far, all that has been Cited is Barry Clark (a life member of the Astronomical Society of Victoria which has seemingly no link to the national Astronomical Society of Australia)& the British Astronomical Association. and honestly, their credentials in the field of CPTED is less than minimal. Dont get me wrong, i am not minimizing the lists of papers they have put forth with this idea, but if an Encyclopedia is to explain their position properly, we should incorporate their slightly biased view and expand upon it in an unbiased way. Can we find Cites for their view from sources they have not cherrypicked?
 * You have to admit that when even 1 of the Refs u mention says "Lighting is one of the most efficient ways to prevent crimes from occurring on school campuses. A well-lighted environment creates a deterrent for prospective vandals — or thieves, drug dealers and rapists — because it raises the risk that they will be caught in the act." ("University lighting: Deterrent to Crime") it is a little hard to believe the opposite.


 * Yet one more way to find a source:.