User talk:TF951497642/sandbox

Hi there, peer review here! I think you have great questions to direct you towards your final goal for this wiki page. I am not sure if you can find information on this, but maybe there are articles that talk about communities that are more likely to be sent to solitary confinement. For example certain communities of color and people based off of their sexuality. Overall, I don't think this page seems opinionated, it seems neutral to me. The information you plan to add also seems great! Information on political prisoners that were sent to solitary confinement would be interesting to read about, especially if there are statistics on how many people get sent to solitary and for what reasons. Melissaglvn (talk) 03:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Another peer review!! I think another valuable addition to this article could be a history of litigation around prisoner's rights, particularly concerning materials and activities they're allowed access too. I know this can vary state to state, and federally to state, so that provides you some avenues to explore. You might also tie that into rights after prison. I know there was a recent Florida vote to reinstate former felon voting rights that was brick-walled by the Florida GOP. Looks good though! Tarynl (talk) 08:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review 2
Hi there - I wanted to do my Peer Review on the Solitary Confinement article. Beginning with the lead section of this article: The lead for Solitary Confinement as posted on Wikipedia is choppy and I feel that it leans towards the justice system in the westernized context/framework in an all-too favorable light. In the first introductory paragraph, there are no citations with reference to it's use being designed solely for 'disruptive inmates,' where-in I question the legitimacy of this assertion, as it does not necessarily happen that way in a real context. The idea that solitary confinement as an 'administrative placement measure,' and not a means of punishment is also not cited and questionable at best. This whole structure of the introductory paragraph also negates the contents of the article and rather than giving a succinct outline of the contents, such as the criticisms/calls for reforms, dismisses these sections entirely.

The Contents: The order of the contents section is in disarray - visually hopping from one topic, to another, back to a similar topic aforementioned, and then on to a new topic. Ideas I have surrounding the order would be to start with: THE USE: The "Secure Housing Units" section may fit here as well (the 'scrutiny' subheading may fit in much later under criticism) as this feels like an additive to the general outline of what Solitary Confinement is.Only one sentence is cited and sourced under this heading/topic and I highly question it's legitimacy as solitary confinement is often utilized as a technology of behavior/social control that reinforces structural racial/class/gendered hierarchies that are pervasive in the united states social framework. More sources here may yield different results that can include more sources sourced from Scholars of Color. HISTORICAL: The "Historical Controversy" section is a bit misleading, because for one, it does not fully analyze the historical context and should be included in a historical analysis of the United States. Beginning with a historical analysis lays the groundwork for understanding modern day systemic problems - a link to "History of United States Prisons" Wikipedia article could be useful here, as in medicine, reformatories/prisons often run as co-occurring facilities that date back to the workhouses in England - these workhouses are an inextricable link to the prison structures we see today. Also, the early historical period ideology that solitary confinement was to be used as a type of penitence for sins committed is also missing and a paragraph could be used to bring forward these instances - "penitentiary" and "penitence" etc. Under this historical analysis has to be a focus on the impacts of law/the criminal justice system. Several areas of this article highlight the legal system, such as the "USE" section, the "LEGALITY" section, and the "SOLITARY CONFINEMENT OF WOMEN" section as well, for the criminal justice system often has exacerbated impacts on Womxn - TransWomen/Transmen LGBTQIA+ inclusive. This is actually another piece that is fairly marginalized from this article, therefore bringing to the forefront LGBTQIA+ issues re: incarceration/solitary confinement would be imperative. Europe is an odd additive here, as the use of solitary confinement/u.s. prison style institutions is rapidly becoming a globalized phenomenon - perhaps a Segway to Abu Ghraib Wikipedia as an example.

LEGALITY: Legality should immediately/or closely follow the historical context as both intermittently intertwine with one another - as co-occurring structures often do. The legality of solitary confinement reified as a question of morals, freedom & democracy more than 60 years ago, more like late 1700s/early 1800s, so this sentence in invalid and without citation. In this section it feels as though it has been fairly well combed through, however, there can be a link added to the Wikipedia "Due Process" at one point below. Legal arguments for/against the use of solitary confinement have a deep historical thread that goes back at least a hundred years or so, so these arguments on whether to cage/or not to cage are ongoing. CRITICISM: Criticism section can encompass the psychological effects of solitary confinement/consequences for race/gender, such as "SOLITARY CONFINEMENT OF WOMEN" "EFFECTS" and other salient topics that touch on the impacts of isolation, as well as misuse of solitary confinement by the criminal justice system, which is totally cite-able.

To prevent 'both sides' PROPONENTS could go here, or they could go after: ALTERNATIVES/REFORM: Closing around alternatives/reforms makes for a better read as it drops off at the present day. COUNTER-ARGUMENTS section could go here.

With regards to neutrality, I read this as a poster for solitary confinement as it sounds as though it legitimizes abusive power structures. The weight reads in favor of the use of solitary confinement. The sections as noted above could be enmeshed/reorganized for a smoother read and could use more citations from Authors of Color. The gendered/racialized nature of it's use in targeting communities of Color (Indigenous, Latinx, Black, Etc.) is almost completely marginalized from the article, as well as the experiences of Trans-Men/Womxn/LGBTQIA+. I would like to see more books sourced as opposed to news/government pages.

Great Choice! I look forward to reading your revisions in the near future and will see you in class on Tuesday Best Regards

(Ewk&#39;sik&#39;nii13 (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC))