User talk:Gzr1899

Incarceration in the U.S. edits
Hello, I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to ask about your recent edits to the “Incarceration in the U.S.” Wikipedia article. In particular, I wanted to learn why you removed the text I added at the very beginning of the document. Each of the claims I provided are supported by updated, non-partisan, and criminal justice expert evidentiary sources. Thank you for helping me understand why you removed the introductory text I previously added. Take care. LTrinka (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Many of the claims were either poorly sourced or failed to meet NPOV standards. The opening line "The United States is unparalleled historically and ranks among the highest worldwide in its dependence on incarceration" seemed to be lifted as a direct quote from an advocacy group, and diverted from the standard way of opening an article on incarceration in a country (see Incarceration in Canada). Some of the wording around costs were loaded language, such as saying that expenses "cost taxpayers x$" (see WP:WORDS). For most of the statistics in the lead to the article, I kept the most up to date and well sourced ones, but the original lead had different statistics from different years and surveys, so I standardized it by keeping the most recent. In general, I think the previous lead to the article did not meet neutrality standards, but if you think there is relevant information missing that can be presented in a sourced, Neutral tone, then feel free to suggest it. User:Gzr1899 (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. As to your first observation: the previous opening sentence ("The U.S. is unparalleled historically and ranks among the highest worldwide in its dependence on incarceration") makes an objective claim consistent with data collected by The Sentencing Project and World Prison Brief. Furthermore, the sentence was an adaptation from a leading criminologist in the field, Ashley Nellis. As the sentence currently reads (“Incarceration in The United States is one of the primary means of punishment and rehabilitation, for the commission of crimes or other offenses.”), it does not adequately capture the most noteworthy feature of incarceration in the U.S., which is the unprecedented size and scale at which the U.S. relies on incarceration. While the opening statement may accord with other Wikipedia pages on incarceration, it is overly broad and does not provide a citation. The statement reads as one that may instead be featured on a page about incarceration in general. I agree with you that the opening sentence should uphold Wikipedia’s neutrality standards, and yet it also should be descriptive and capture the most salient aspect of U.S. incarceration (its remarkable size and scale). LTrinka (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any precedent or need to include details about the scale of incarceration in the very first sentence, especially since the rest of the lead and the article expand on that point a lot. Based on the MOS:FIRST guidelines, and precedent from other similar articles, I believe the current first sentence better serves the purpose as being a general introduction to the article. Even if your worry is that the article does not place enough weight on the large scale of incarceration (relative to other developed countries), your original first sentence was a direct quote from another source, which is not acceptable as an introduction sentence. Again, the article talks extensivley about the scale of incarceration, and even a reader who only reads the lead will see that User:Gzr1899 (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, but there does not appear to be a governing precedent here. (See “Youth incarceration in the U.S.,” which begins by pointing to the most salient feature of youth imprisonment in the U.S.) If you are very committed to your opening sentence, I understand. However, I do intend to add my previously deleted text back into the first paragraph (after your opening sentence). The points I made were well-supported and have wide agreement amongst scholars on this topic. LTrinka (talk) 12:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If you want to add a sentence emphasizing that in the lead, I think that would be appropriate, just not as the first sentence. However, if you intend to use the same quote, make sure you designate it as a quote or paraphrase it, rather than repeating the line directly from the source. (E.g. just set it off with "some scholars have said that "the us is .....") User:Gzr1899 (talk) 13:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)