Talk:CSI effect

CSI effect is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 17, 2011.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 7, 2011	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
April 16, 2011	Featured article candidate	Promoted
November 19, 2022	Featured article review	Demoted

Current status: Former featured article

Television: CSI Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the CSI task force.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Genesis of the term[edit]

Since this term is obviously quite new, it needs to be explained a bit first. WHO deemed the "CSI effect" to be considered a THING, and WHERE did it come from? Where was it mentioned? You see, it sounds like the opinion of a commentator in the media: it needs to be justified as an identified idea in society before we can explain it in an encyclopedia article. Looks a bit amateur right now. -tilgrieog

I believe I first heard about this a year ago in US News and World Report (like Feburary of 2005, to clarify). I would like to say that it's likely it came from there, but I'm not 100% about that. I'm thinking that it might have existed before that. --YoungFreud 10:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've reread the US News link (which was 4/25/05) and I think the term came from there. They specifically mention that prosecutors are dubbing it the CSI effect, but no other source given, although they mention in the same paragraph a prosecutor, Jodi Hoos of Peoria, Ill., telling the jury that they have their "CSI moment" when when the prosection presented the DNA matching the suspect's DNA in a rape case. --YoungFreud 10:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussions[edit]

Resolved

– Discussion of merges has died out after over 2 years.

Merge vs. accuracy discussions[edit]

I think that we have diverged. This talk page is supposed to be more for if the articles should be merged, not the accuracy of the articles. I think that the articles should be merged because they are so simmiler. There is enough of an overlap that it is not worth having two seperate articles. swat671 00:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the contrary; the principal purpose of articles' talk pages is article accuracy and improvement; merge discussions are comparatively minor topics. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CSI Syndrome[edit]

Merge seems well founded to me. Not enough detail to warrant a separate article. haz (talk) e 18:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem like a logical addition; the Syndrome piece would make a nice addendum to this (laughable) phenomenon that depicts the sad gullibility of our culture.

Don't merge[edit]

Let me be the first voice my objection to the proposed merge. Yes, it's a neologism, and you may not like it, but there are plenty of reliable secondary sources (and 49,500 results on google) to support its contents, including an entire book about the subject. I would say that this more than satisfies the inclusion criterion for neologisms per WP:NEO, and thus deserves its own article.— Sandtiger 21:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence that the CSI effect exists[edit]

Resolved

– Article has sufficient reference citations to survive WP:AFD, and academic, non-pop-culture, sources have been added.

Is there any evidence or cites so show that the 'CSI Effect' is actually real, ie that jurors now have higher expectations, that criminals learn from the shows or even that police worry about the Effect? Ashmoo 06:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about evidence (scientifice studies and such) but cites are provided in the external links (The Star Tribune article is pretty interesting).--Hraefen 06:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just updated the entry with a link to a study which appears to say its not a big problem [1] (Emperor 02:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I work as a Criminalist for a lab and can say with certainty that I believe this 'CSI Effect' is real. It's most evident when talking with friends, family members, or random people about my job, and the responses I usually get are centered around the TV shows. While it is nice to be recognized for my work, these people are idolizing Forensic Scientists and Criminalists, viewing them on a much to high of a pedestal, believing that we do not make mistakes ever, and they should ignore all other evidence but what we give. I've even had a juror come up to me weeks, if not a few months, after a court case excited to remember who I was and what I did, wanting to talk with me on the subject. The surprising thing was I didn't testify, I only observed from the back of the room. I had only entered the courtroom with the Expert. Bsspewer 16:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being a scientist in molecular diagnostics, I've also met a couple of forensics experts and a lot of them complained that CSI led to some people asking them "Why didn't you do this and that test?". I think far more than the temporal factor cited in the article, it's the budgetary factor that is regularly ignored. You probably know this better but I'd be leave the "months" the tests take to largely be an issue of backlogs. I mean, I can do plenty of DNA sequence analysis within 24h if I can start with it as soon as I have the samples. --OliverH 09:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct about the backlogs, but there is also another issue to consider. Very often, one test is required to determine what further work needs to be done, and that further work makes other work necessary, and so on. Therefore, a lot of the work is done in series, and that can make an investigation take much longer than you would expect. 206.194.127.112 (talk) 16:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added academic references and empirical studies[edit]

As many of the references on this page were newspaper and magazine articles, I added some info on actual research on the CSI effect. I know of four published academic papers on the topic (and I'm sure more are on the way). I added a paragraph that describes what these studies found. (And I did some light housekeeping). -Nick^talk 23:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Forensic science-fiction"[edit]

Resolved

– Moot; such a section (regardless of its name) no longer exists.

I would like to rename the first section "Forensic Science in Fiction." That section title just puts a bad light on forensics in general and doesn't suit the section at all, and it would fit in more with Wikipedia style.--Wikiphilia 01:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moot as this point may be, that would be "Forensic science in fiction"; we don't Capitalize Every Word In Headings, per WP:MOS. Actually, the de facto convention here would be "Forensic science in popular culture". And really, that would not belong in this article, but as a section of the forensic science article, from which section this article would then almost certainly be a link. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other meaning[edit]

This article seems to touch on, but insufficiently cover, the other meaning of this term, acknowledged implicitly on a campy CSI episode itself in which Grisson tells a TV camera that there are already too many police and crime shows: The term has also been applied to the strong effect upon criminals to go to increasingly greater and more intricate lengths to eliminate forensic evidence of their activities, directly as a result of popular awareness of (alleged) forensic capabilities. I know I have seen (alas, not copied and saved) articles in which real-life CSIs decry these TV shows as effectively creating a new arms race between CSI-avid criminals and real-world crime labs. This is actually a quite significant effect and should be covered here (or in another article, if there is some other term for the effect in question). The show has taught the average viewer, much less a semi-student of the issues, that even seemingly meticulous soap-and-water washing of blood from a crime scene is useless and more DNA-destructive cleansers have to be used, that any crime should be committed with a tight hair net on, that all clothing should be discarded and the body thoroughly washed, down to the eyelids, after firing a gun, that any hand-to-hand injury sustained by a now-dead victim must be gouged or burned to remove any DNA traces from the attacker, including under the fingernails, that even knuckles, cheeks, palms and toes can be used for fingerprint-like identification, that explosives should never be made in an even vaguely similar manner twice, that jewelry, silks and other non-generic adornments should never be worn during the commission of a crime, that one should wear very generic shoes to a crime of any kind and then destroy (not discard) them, that no unusual medications, topical or internal, should be used any time before committing a crime, that a gun intended for a crime should be bought off the black market because it has probably been used in a crime before and therefore will lead investigators to the previous user and his/her crimes and away from you, etc., etc., etc. If I were criminally-minded, I would be probably at least 6200% more likely to get away with now it after watching these shows than if I'd never seen them. Before them, most criminals' idea of forensic self-protection appeared to be "wear gloves, don't bleed all over the place, throw the weapon in a ditch down the street". Way different world now. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the other side of the coin is that most criminals aren't all that bright anyway. For every case that goes unsolved because the criminal meticulously covered their tracks, there are hundreds in which the person was caught because they either didn't bother to cover up at all, or blabbed about their crime to a bunch of people. In my lab, we had one case of a woman who murdered her husband, dismembered his body, then called up her neighbor to help her dispose of the remains. The neighbor promptly called police. 206.194.127.112 (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other Shows on Television[edit]

There are now more shows following the popular trends in "fictional " forensic science. "Bones" involves an expert in forensics assisted by an FBI agent. Although "Bones" is highly stylized and the forensic science is typically "instant" and glamourised, the show adds more depth to the motives and psychology of the crimes being investigated. Is this worth adding to the articles reference section?```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ern malleyscrub (talk • contribs) 11:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historic "examples"[edit]

Surely this "effect" would date in some fashion at least back to the Sherlock Holmes stories? While I realize this article is specifically about expectations of forensic science, stories detailing methods of crime-solving have surely had a similar effect on both the public at large and criminals? Just a thought... Huw Powell (talk) 23:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prose feedback[edit]

Okay - I'll see what I can do and jot some queries as I come across them.. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The CSI effect (sometimes CSI syndrome or CSI infection) refers to several ways in which the exaggerated portrayal of forensic science on CSI: Crime Scene Investigation and other crime shows affects the public perception of forensic science. - okay, it'd be nice to tweak this - I'd say "impacts upon" or "influences" rather than "affects" - something about the latter verb that seems a bit...unconscious or something. Also, I really don't think the use of parentheses here is conducive to a polished introductory sentence. I think "The CSI effect, also termed/called CSI syndrome or CSI infection, refers to several ways..." flows a bit better.

I prefer "influences", so I've employed that. I've also ousted the parentheses in favor of "also known as". --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~The term most often refers to the belief...~~ ~~- suggests the term can refer to other things instead?~~ my bad, I am reading on now.

Thanks mate! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DNA and fingerprint data.. - specific wikilinks here?

Linked.

Vocational interest in forensic science has also proliferated among youths in several other countries... "youths"?? - how about " Vocational interest in forensic science has also proliferated among students in several other countries..."

Changed.

.. there is some concern that these programs do not adequately prepare students for real forensics work.. - change one of the "program"s to "course" to reduce repetition.

Changed.

The discussion about the proliferation of courses got me wondering that it doesn't sound like there is a uniform accreditation process - is there any discussion on this as that might be interesting to add here

, an idea which may have been inspired by the 2002 science fiction film Minority Report. - I am not sure that concept is fully realised in the source...(?) ", an idea which appeared in the 2002 science fiction film Minority Report." is simpler and easier to read.

Agreed, changed.

Citation Needed?[edit]

The following sentence in the Lede appears to need a citation. "Although this belief is widely held among American legal professionals, several studies have shown that crime shows are unlikely to cause such an effect."Deterence ^Talk 02:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lede doesn't need citations (WP:LEDE). It's just a summary of the article. You'll see that these studies are referenced in the main article itself. SnowFire (talk) 03:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

== Relevance of "real murder case" entry ==

Something about the line:

Real murder cases in the United States often involve a perpetrator and a victim who are both young black males, a situation which is rarely portrayed on television.

doesn't quite seem right. The article's about the CSI effect, but this general comment on the lack of reality in crime shows in general is out of place. The article could well go into any other unrealistic aspect, including the tendency for crimes to be solved within the allotted hour or the small numbers of actual lack of drug squad officers driving around in Ferrari Testarossas and wearing cool sunglasses. Mark5677 (talk) 09:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That information is relevant. But, only just. Deterence ^Talk 10:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it is out of place. If "the CSI effect" was about audiences' misperceptions about which races commit crime, then it would be relevant. 89.247.181.2 (talk) 12:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I read it, it goes to showing how CSI is a factually inaccurate (although entertaining!) portrayal of the realities of this stuff, admittedly all of the other examples given are strictly foresnsic in nature - perhaps it's a good idea to expand the non-forensic stuff to include things like how real crime lab workers probably don't all carry guns, arrest suspects and perform interviews etc. Bob House 884 (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, in writing this sentence, I was trying to make the point that, when it comes to crime shows, it's not just that the forensic science is inaccurate, it's that the shows themselves are entirely unrealistic in their depiction of crime. Mark and Bob both have good ideas for additional/replacement points; if any of you find some good sources to back them up, feel free to make the changes as you see fit. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 12:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on the TFA by the way, it's a great read :) Bob House 884 (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So where do we stand: remove this / change this / leave this ? Prefer to get some consensus prior to doing something, which for me would involve removing this reference. Mark5677 (talk) 10:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minority Report[edit]

In 2006, IBM and the Memphis Police Department developed software to predict crime locations and time frames, an idea popularized by the 2002 science fiction film Minority Report.

The cited source for this statement is quite poor; it is an ABC News blurb which in turn cites no sources. The source seems to say that the software locates "hot spots" of crime, which is easy to believe, not that it predicts crime locations and time frames. I think this sentence should be stricken. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

italicization[edit]

Why does the title bar of the article italicize "CSI" but the rest of the article doesn't? — fourthords | =Λ= | 19:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on CSI effect. 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 01:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on CSI effect. 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 18:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on CSI effect. 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 21:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy[edit]

Penlite, regarding the "Research findings" section you created, seen here and here, it doesn't seem that you checked to see if the article already included some of the material. For example, the "Trials" section already stated, "One of the largest empirical studies of the CSI effect was undertaken in 2006 by Washtenaw County Circuit Court Judge Donald Shelton and two researchers from Eastern Michigan University."

Because of your edits, the article now has a "Research findings" section, but other parts of the article also include research findings. I don't see that it needed a "Research findings" section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FA concerns[edit]

Looking at this one as part of the WP:URFA/2020 sweeps of older featured articles. This older featured article does not seem to have kept up with the most recent research, as most of the sources are at least 10 years old when this topic has seen continued scholarly attention. Examples are [2], [3], [4] and many more. There's a lot written about this topic in the last 10 years, and very little of the most recent research is included.

There's also a few instance of direct citations to court cases where certain things are interpreted using the case itself in a way that borders on original research, such as "In this case, the Maryland appellate court ruled the CSI effect voir dire question inappropriate due to its biased language and use of the term "convict" without mention of acquittal". Hog Farm _Talk 02:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]