Talk:Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment

Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 13, 2012	Good article nominee	Not listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 17, 2007.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment led to the enactment of mandatory arrests, without warrants, when responding police had probable cause that domestic violence had occurred?

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Why is this worthy of an article? The New Zealand Police have a policy (particularly in cities such as Hamilton or Waitakere) of arresting the male involved in any 'domestic violence' incident (regardless of whether violence has actually occurred, regardless of who is damaged) and locking him up for twenty-four hours. As far as I am aware, this approach has not decreased the incidence of domestic violence in New Zealand, which has one of the highest rates in the 'developed' world. Perhaps it might even contribute to its increase? Duh. 222.153.1.17 02:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Minneapolis study influenced the New Zealand pro-arrest policy (and other countries), in addition to influences on policy in the U.S. Correct approach or not, the tremendous influence of the study on policy is highly notable, as is the debate and controversy regarding the study and pro-arrest policies. --Aude (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really necessary to have a further reading section that's almost as long as the rest of the article? Modest Genius ^talk 02:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "further reading" section is really a list of sources that need to be converted into inline cites. The article was created a few days ago, which is not enough time to get that done. Had I known the article was going to be on the Main Page, I would have temporarily moved the list to a user page. --Aude (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Minneapolis experiment and its replications warrant a prominent place in the development of social policy toward intimate partner violence and warrant extensive coverage (though perhaps fewer footnotes) in Wikipedia.

This current article is mostly accurate about the Minneapolis experiment but less so about the replications. Among other things, the article attributes to Maxwell, et al. 2001 findings that were reported by Sherman, 1992 and uses Elliot, 1989 as a primary source when it is a review of other research.

The findings from Maxwell, et al are substantively different from those reported by Sherman, 1992.

Sherman reports his expert but qualitative summary of findings from Minneapolis and the six replications and concludes that the effects of arrest are mixed depending on offender characteristics.

Maxwell, et al. create common data for some 4,000 individual cases of male on female violence from the five replications and use statistical tests that find consistent support for a crime reduction effect for the use of arrest. They recommend the consistent use of arrest but note that arrest alone is not effective against a small proportion of high rate offenders.

Joelhenrygarner (talk) 04:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of Lawrence W. Sherman?

Though not essential IMO, it would be nice to include a photo of Lawrence W. Sherman in this article. — Rich wales 05:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 15:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this article shortly. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First off, given the size of the article I think the lead should be lengthened. Try to make it two nice paragraphs; I'll continue with the review once that happens. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get on that ASAP! BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 05:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I'm still conscious of this...I've just had a ridiculously busy week. Fear not, though, for I'll get to it soon. BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 12:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand; had one as well, usually I'm already done with the review by now. I'll try to get to it in the next couple days. To go with the lead request, have a cite where there's a citation needed tag before I get to finishing the review. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review finally done. Here's the issues:

"was a study done in 1981-1982" done from 1981 to 1982 sounds a bit nicer, but that's more my preference than an actual issue.
"Also, the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 added to the fight for legislation in the 1990s in the states without mandatory arrest laws." this sentence feels a little off, like it has a different tone than the rest of the section; could it be reworded?
"The debate over Mandatory Arrest is still underway" not sure why that's capitalized here.
Some of the references need publisher information and accessdates, namely 20 and 21.
The two citation needed tags needs to be addressed. One was already on the page, one I added.
As noted above, expand the lead.
Ref 18 generates "Your request cannot be processed by the Ministry of Justice website" Bob1960evens (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 21 generates a "Page not found" error. Bob1960evens (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's not too much to fix. I'll put the article on hold for seven days and will pass upon it being fixed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be able to fix the issues by Monday? We're at a week since the above comments and only the first has been fixed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll shoot to have as many of them fixed by then as possible. Thanks for your patience. BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 05:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, finally getting to this. BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 20:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated to this review, but "from 1981 to 1982" is specified in the MoS. Chris857 (talk) 02:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noted; I'm putting a hard deadline of the 14th on fixing the issues since they are rather minor. I'll either pass or fail on that date. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've allowed enough time for this, and now that extra issues have been found, I unfortunately have to fail this. If everything is fixed later on, it can always be re-nominated at that time. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it really should include its relationship/influence/ effect on the Duluth Model which had a huge effect on police practices and was adopted by many states, including Florida as policy. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Short on quantitative detail

On a quick reading this article seems very short of quantitative detail. "Arrest was found to be the most effective police response. The study found that the offenders assigned to be arrested had lower rates of re-offending than offenders assigned to counseling or temporarily sent away." The same wording could be used for an improvement of 1% or 90%. The same lack of detail is found elsewhere in the article. If the detail is buried there and I've missed it, it should be summarised in the introduction. Pol098 (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment. 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) 19:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]