Talk:Prison abolition movement

Eighty percent of women in prison are pregnant?

Someone added that 80% of prison women are pregnant, but it's unsourced. That sounds a little absurd.

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-03

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mel849 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Gabiangiuli.

— Assignment last updated by Momlife5 (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Undue Weight: A large portion of this article seems to be written with the assumption that all prison abolitionists are Anarchists, which is NOT true

There is certainly a notable segment of prison abolitionists who are also anarchists, and that segment certainly deserves mention in the article; but the two ideologies/philosophies are distinct. One can be a prison abolitionist but not an anarchist. Being a prison abolitionist is a philosophy about prisons. Someone can be against prisons but have any number of views about other unrelated issues. The article needs to be expanded to include all types of prison abolitionists, as the "anarchist prison abolotionist" perspecitve is clearly being given undue weight.

I also fear that some of the photos in the article (such as the grafitti and the banner that includes the words "fuck the borders") make the movement seem more radical or "out there" or "crazy" than it actually is. It's portraying a radical and angry branch of what intuitively should be a very peaceful movement.

The article also fails to give much mention to potential alternatives to incarceration proposed by non-anarchist prison abolitionists. (Such as Restorative justice, which is barely mentioned at all, just to give one example. Treating all or most crime as a mental health issue instead of as something that needs to be "punished" is another example -- similar to the movement to treat drug use/addiction as a mental health issue instead of a criminal issue.) Vontheri (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Vontheri! I don't think the "undue weight" label is appropriate. The article is fairly long, and gives a number of views; that anarchist views are extensively described in the article seems appropriate to me given the very long history of anarchist abolition efforts. Other than the section "Anarchism and prison abolition", the rest of the article is quite general and not anarchist-specific, so I don't think there is undue weight being given to anarchist positions. I do not agree that the article "seems to be written with the assumption that all prison abolitionists are anarchists". If you have more non-anarchist-related content to add, please do. Cheers, DoctorMatt (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Then why are all three of the photographs on the page related to Anarchism? (With the possible ambiguous exception of this one which although it does not explicitly mention Anarchism or use Anarchist imagery, it is still graffiti which is an artform associated with leftist Anarchist movements.) Yet none of those images are in sections of the article specifically about Anarchist views or history of prison abolitionism? At the very least, the images should be in a relevant section instead of randomly distributed around the article. There are zero images showing prison abolitionist protests, literature, etc. that is from non-anarchist perspectives. This gives the impression to the casual reader that prison abolitionism is entirely a "radical" or even violent (ie. the image with the banner saying "fuck the borders, burn the prisons") ideology, or one that encourages illegal activity (such as illegal graffiti/vandalism, as distinct from legal graffiti as an artform) instead of a movement about how to more humanely deal with those who commit illegal activity.

The letters "anarch" appear 58 times in the article. It certainly should be mentioned, but in its proper place. There are passages about Anarchism randomly interspersed throughout the article in various sections. Nearly half of the section "Abolitionist views" (prior to the subsection “Nine perspectives for prison abolitionists”) is about Anarchism, for example. The section "1973 Walpole Prison uprising" is largely about Anarchism, while the actual article for the event (Walpole prison strike) does not even mention the words "anarchy", "anarchism", or any similar words.

I intend to add more non-anarchist-related content. But there are also a million other things I intend to do both on and off Wikipedia, so it's difficult to say when I will be able to do so. I put the banner up in case anyone else has any time or ideas for changes in the mean time. Vontheri (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I still do not agree that the "undue" banner should be on this article. Prison abolitionism is radical: it is very far from what mainstream (US people, at least) believe, it is an extreme political position to take (again, in the US at least). It is not a bad thing to be radical. I do not believe that anarchism, or being associated with anarchism or other radical things, is a bad thing; so, I don't think there is anything wrong with connecting prison abolition closely with anarchism in this article, for the reasons I wrote above.

I don't care about the images on the page. They add little, and it doesn't matter to me one way or the other if they stay on the page.

Perhaps you could list here four or five prison abolition organizations that you feel are non-anarchist (in addition to the ones mentioned in the article already) and I could look into adding information about their activities to the page, if you think that would help. DoctorMatt (talk) 19:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Images are hugely important and prominent for Wikipedia pages , as is true across all the communicative arts, so defining a range of images which appropriate it convey the breadth and depth of the movement is very important. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I do not currently have the time to engage in a complex on-going conversation on Wikipedia due to complicated and unforeseen events in my life, but here is at least one organization that seems to be prison-abolitionist without being anarchist. Whether or not something is a "bad thing" or "good thing" is irrelevant; Wikipedia is here to document reality, and the reality is that there are prison abolitionists who are not anarchists.

My definition of "radical" is something like "outside the mainstream, violent, and irrational, with strong emotion overpowering logical ways of actually influencing the opinions of other people who don't agree." (That's probably not the dictionary definition of "radical" but it's what I intended by my use of the word.) Prison abolitionism is outside the mainstream, but it is not necessarily violent or irrational. Holding up signs with language like "burn the prisons" sounds violent and is unlikely to convince people who don't already agree with prison abolitionism to actually change their minds; it's much more likely to push people away. "Close the prisons", or "end the prisons", or similar, would be a non-violent and rational alternative wording. Vontheri (talk) 05:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is here to document reality, and the reality is that there are prison abolitionists who are not anarchists." Talking to me like I'm an idiot, and/or unaware of what Wikipedia's mission is, means an end to my participation in this conversation. Best, DoctorMatt (talk) 06:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I was not trying to talk to you "like an idiot" or anything even remotely like that. I promise you've seriously misinterpreted my tone and intent. Vontheri (talk) 00:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

If you can find a photo (or WP:RS that aligns with the WP:POV that you want to add and it fits, there's nothing stopping you from doing so. In the meantime, please remember, the talk page is not a WP:SOAPBOX. Please refrain from WP:personalattacks and casting WP:ASPERSIONS. Kire1975 (talk) 09:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Kire1975When I can find time to add such content then I will certainly add it.

Can you please tell my how I violated any of those things you mentioned, especially how anything I said could possibly be conceived of as a personal attack? Or casting aspersions? Where did I accuse anyone of any sort of misbehavior? Perhaps I accused the person in the "burn the prisons" image of misbehavior, but (as far as I am aware) the individual in that picture is not anyone on Wikipedia. I said absolutely nothing meant to insult anyone. I was engaging in amicable debate; at least that's what I thought we were doing.

If I violated any of those then it would have to be "soapbox", but I was only explaining what I meant by "radical" because DoctorMatt and I seemed to have different definitions of what the word meant, so I was explaining what I personally meant by the word so what I had said prior would be properly understood in the way that I intended.

@DoctormattI'm really quite perplexed and flabbergasted that me saying "Wikipedia is here to document reality, and the reality is that there are prison abolitionists who are not anarchists" was somehow taken as an insult. People mention to each each other Wikipedia's mission and policies all the time; it's not typically meant to be condescending or to imply that the other person is not aware of Wikipedia's basic purpose.

I'm sorry I offended you, but it was by no means intentional, nor would I ever in a million years have foreseen it would be interpreted that way, especially as I have been an advocate for civility within Wikipedia for a long time and often take long breaks from posting here for my own mental health due being insulted and treated uncivil myself. Vontheri (talk) 01:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)