Jump to content

Talk:New South Wales Police Force strip search scandal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merger discussion

[edit]
CLOSED
Agree to merging of all article(s) as per wp:Consensus. There does not seem to be disagreement regarding the mergers happening. Concerned editor(s) should feel free to merge at any time, but:
  • Please concisely summarize and move material from the source articles;
  • Please be judicious in moving the referenced content into the target article keeping it all encyclopedic (will it matter 10 years from now?);
  • Please avoid duplication.
Proceed with merging. Non-Administrative closure-- GenQuest "scribble" 13:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requesting to merge articles: New South Wales Police Force strip search scandal (Law Enforcement Conduct Commission investigations) and New South Wales Police Force strip search scandal (Freedom of Information releases) into New South Wales Police Force strip search scandal; dated: 02/22. One scandal does not merit three articles, but apparently a simple redirect is no longer an option. Discuss here. Sumanuil 00:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not object to the redirect. I objected to the fact you blanked two pages and made zero effort to move the information from those articles over to the main article.Kylesenior (talk) 01:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I should have, but there's been plenty of time for others to do so. A redirect does not erase previous versions, after all. Also, determining someone's motive over the internet can be difficult. Sumanuil 02:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If there has been plenty of time, why did you not attempt to do so?Kylesenior (talk) 03:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I should have. I probably will end up doing so if this merge goes through. But it probably would have been reverted, though probably not by you. Some people seem to be determined to keep the three-article status quo. Sumanuil 03:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging those who have recently been involved in the article. Feel free to ping anyone I missed. @Bilorv, Marchjuly, OpticalBloom241, Robertsky, Njd-de, and Nick-D:Kylesenior (talk) 03:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge FIA releases page and Commission investigations page. The main article is long as it is, and has potential to be summarised furhter. Some details on FIA page may already be included throughout the main article, and the rest can be included similarly throughout the article. For the Commission investigations page, much of the content is supported by primary sources and written like a long news report. Summarise and merge into main article.
On the same note, what about Issues relating to the use of drug detection dogs in New South Wales. Are the issues relating to the drug detection dogs primarily relating to to the scandal here? – robertsky (talk) 06:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The whole thing is a mess of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS editing, and I'd suggest sending all the articles to AFD. Nick-D (talk) 07:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I've been pinged: I believe this topic is notable, whether under this or another title. I can't speak to the other articles or the merge proposal. — Bilorv (talk) 12:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the FOI releases article should be merged here. The concept of there being FOI releases as part of this scandal is not hugely notable, so it's not a good content split. And most of the content there would support or even duplicate the content here. I'm not against a merge with the LECC investigations article, it's more that it would be better considered later, after both articles have had some of their excessive detail removed. Basically, don't bite off more than can be chewed. --Xurizuri (talk) 05:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The merge template should be removed by the person doing the merge, but at the time of the merging. The que for merges right now is running at about 15 months (last I checked), so patience is a virtue with merges. OpticalBloom241 should, however, re-install the Merge Request Banner in the meantime, so anyone can see the issue and act on it, if he doesn't want to get to it now. Regards, GenQuest "scribble" 13:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
marchjuly GenQuest My feeling was that there was too much content in the New South Wales Police Force strip search scandal (Law Enforcement Conduct Commission investigations) to merge it. I thought it might just be better to leave it as a standalone article. OpticalBloom241 (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, That is acting against the consensus here. Please add the template back. Thanks, GenQuest "scribble" 14:39, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GenQuest: I actually had re-added the "Merge" template before I posted above this discussion. I apologize for not mentioning that in my OP and any confusion not doing so might have caused. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Anyone can do it. Same with the merger. GenQuest "scribble" 05:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note; I point OpticalBloom241 to WP:MERGECLOSE (aka Step 4) which includes the removal of the merge templates when the discussion is closed, not when the merge is done (aka Step 5). I've added the being merged template. Klbrain (talk) 23:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Table

[edit]

Njd-de I wanted to ask about the removal of the "Number of Strip Searches conducted by NSW Police" table. It's this edit here. My understanding was that the reason cited was synthesis but I wasn't sure if there was an MOS issue also. While the content in the table combined data from different sources, this was done for aesthetic purposes. There was no new conclusion drawn about the data itself. I believe this was in compliance with WP:SYNTH guidelines. Sorry, I know it was a while ago. OpticalBloom241 (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OpticalBloom241. Tables can be used to compare data over a timespan. Data should be from the same source, using the same methodology though. It appeared to me that you had combined multiple different sources, using different methodologies which even lead to a situation where they contradicted each other. Simple table representation shouldn't need a more than 450 words explanation in notes where the numbers are coming from and what they mean. Wikipedia's No original research-policy does allow for basic arithmetic calculations. It specifically mentions the difficulty with statistics though. – NJD-DE (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only available data comes from NSW Police and some of it is inconsistent and contradictory. Certain datasets reference calendar year periods whereas others reference financial year periods which adds to the confusion. There's no uniform source for this information either. I did my best to present the data accurately hence the notes outlining the problems and where the information was sourced from. It's not ideal but there's just no other way to do it. OpticalBloom241 (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's the option of not including this table at all. I don't see the necessity for including a table based on multiple different, inconsistent and contradicting sources. – NJD-DE (talk) 10:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

[edit]

Njd-de Marchjuly I was thinking it might be a good idea to merge the Issues Relating article into this one. Just wanted to get your thoughts on it. Thank you OpticalBloom241 (talk) 00:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't really notice this until now; so, my apologies for not replying any sooner. You seem to have already redirected Issues relating to the use of drug detection dogs in New South Wales to this article; so, perhaps a merge is no longer necessary. A merge could be a good idea given the previous other merge discussions related to this article, but you might want to also run this by the users involved in those discussions to get their input. It does seem (as someone else mentioned previously) that multiple articles are probably not needed about what appears to be a single scandal. You should also understand that a WP:MERGE doesn't automatically mean copying-and-pasting all of the content from one article into another; so, the other content might need to be trimmed or summarized down quite a bit to remove any redundancies before being merged into this one. If you do incorporate content from other articles into this, you should also be aware that WP:CWW requires attribution be given in most cases in order to comply with Wikipedia's licensing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to Table

[edit]

@Njd-de: I've made changes to the "Number of Strip Searches Conducted by New South Wales Police" table in the Statistical Data section of the article. As I said before the information is collected from three different sources but there's been no attempt to draw any new conclusion about the data, which I'd argue is in keeping with WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY. There's some basic arithmetic as well but I'd also argue that this falls within SYNTH is not numerical summarization guidelines. Would appreciate your input. Thank you OpticalBloom241 (talk) 09:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shared SBS video

[edit]

@OpticalBloom241: Are you able to find the original source for this video? It would be much better to cite the original source than someone sharing it on Facebook. If the original source for the video cannot be found, then it might be possible to cite the original news report without a link to the video, but in that case it would be helpful to know when the report aired and other information about it since it might be able to be treated like a newspaper report which isn't available online per WP:CITEHOW#Newspaper articles. Citing the original source of the video is preferable to citing some third party Facebook account posting about the video. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marchjuly I can't locate the original video, hence why I re-added the link as I figured it was better than leaving the content uncited. I thought it might be acceptable to link the file with an added disclaimer that it was "Archived via Facebook" but I'll defer to you on how to proceed here. Upload date was 12 June 2018 but the video was originally aired on 10 June 2018. OpticalBloom241 (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the original SBS video can't be found on an SBS website, a link to it probably shouldn't be added since there are concerns related to WP:COPYLINK. The Facebook post appears to be a case of a video being embedded and not a link to a video being added, which again is probably not something Wikipedia should be using. There are also issues related to linking of the post related to things other than the video because generally social media posts aren't considered reliable sources except in certain cases as explained in WP:ABOUTSELF. The original comment made by the Facebook account holder and the subsequent comments made by others that followed would probably not be acceptable even if there video added to the post. When I queried some others about this, one person found this SBS story which appears to be related to the video repost. Perhaps that can be used as a citation instead of the video. Finally, when you re-added this link, you marked your edit as a WP:MINOR edit. Generally, things like adding/removing content (including citations) are not typically considered minor edits and shouldn't be marked as such. In particular, any edit which essentially reverts another edit made by someone else also is typically not considered a minor edit. This is not a huge deal, and perhaps you weren't aware of this. Editors pretty much never end up blocked or anything like that for mistakenly marking edits as minor, but it can sometimes come up when there are other issues being discussed. I'm assuming this is why you didn't leave an edit summary when you re-added the link. Not leaving an edit summary (like marking edits as minor) every now and then probably isn't such a big deal, but be aware there are users as well as bots who look for "unexplained edits" and will remove them as such if they find the edit even a bit questionable. So, it's best not to assume that the reasons an edit was made are obvious to others and leave an edit summary (especially when re-adding potentially contentious content previously removed by another) to help explain why. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Non free file perimssions

[edit]

Marchjuly I'm aware that you've tagged a number of files on this page for F7 deletion relating to NFCC violations. I've uploaded a more detailed rationale on each file's talk page explaining why each item should be retained. I've done my best to keep the use of non free content to a minimum but broadly speaking I feel that those files are essential in the context of the article and not having them there diminishes the reader's ability to understand the topic. It's a complex topic and most people aren't going to be familiar with what's being discussed. Each file relates to a significant event and having them there draws attention to this fact while also providing the reader with a direct context for certain comments or incidents, which I feel is important given that some were controversial in nature. OpticalBloom241 (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did tag some of the files you uploaded for deletion earlier this year because because I didn't really think they satisfied Wikipedia's non-free content use policy for one reason or another. These files were subsequently reviewed by an administrator and then deleted by the same administrator for WP:F7. Generally, that only happens when the reviewing administrator feels that file's use clearly doesn't comply with relevant and that further discussion isn't going to change that. If you feel an error has been made, you can ask for clarification from the administrator who deleted the file.
There are also a number of other notifications related to orphaned non-free use and WP:F5 that were added by bots. These too were deleted by administrators after a review. You seem to have been re-uploading files (in some cases multiple times) after they've been deleted by an administrator and many of these have been subsequently been re-tagged or re-nominated by bots or other users (including some who are administrators) for reasons related to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. If any of these have yet to be deleted, you should be able to find out why the file has been tagged or nominated for deletion by looking at its page. You can also find out who tagged or nominated the file for deletion by looking at the file page's history. If after doing this you disagree with the assessment being made or the reasons given for deletion, you can explain why by posting something on the file's talk page.
When a file has been deleted by administrator, there are still ways to discuss that deletion or have it reveiwed. Typically, this process starts by seeking clarification about the reasons for deletion on the user talk page of the administrator who deleted the file. If the file has already been deleted, you can find out who deleted it and file by clicking on the file's red link looking at the deletion log at the top of the page or by checking Special:log. Re-uploading a previously deleted file is pretty much never good idea since it might be seen as an attempt to circumvent a decision by an administrator and can also be viewed as a form of disruptive editing. If you weren't aware of any of this, then that's OK; just don't re-upload deleted files in the future.
FWIW, I personally don't see any justification for using any of previously deleted files you re-uploaded and re-added to this article, and agree with those who renominated them for deletion. I don't think the situation regarding their non-free use has changed in any way, but you can clarify why you think their uses are policy compliant by posting something on their respective file talk pages. Most administrators check the talk page of a file tagged for deletion before deleting the file, and have the discretion to decline the deletion request or suggest further discussion when they feel it's warranted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 August 22 § File:Mick Fuller Daily Telegraph 2019.jpg

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 August 22 § File:Mick Fuller Daily Telegraph 2019.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 August 23 § File:Police Tent Splendour 2017 2.jpg

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 August 23 § File:Police Tent Splendour 2017 2.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 August 24 § File:Police Minister Strip Search Comments.ogv

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 August 24 § File:Police Minister Strip Search Comments.ogv. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 August 25 § File:Lessons Learned Unit Screensaver.png

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 August 25 § File:Lessons Learned Unit Screensaver.png. Marchjuly (talk) 03:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC) -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking clarity

[edit]

@Nick-D: could you please explain why you've made this revision here. You've cited WP:OR as the reason for deleting the video and a mention of it in the text. The file was included in a section of the article discussing allegations that drug detection dogs used by NSW Police have falsely reacted to non drug related odours, including food odours. The file featured a video of a stunt filmed at the 2006 Big Day Out music festival wherein an ABC presenter had allegedly used raw meat to draw the attention of drug detection dogs at the event. I'm not sure how WP:OR applies here. Could you please elaborate on why you removed the content. Thank you OpticalBloom241 (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of this article, that is a clear instance of OR. If you can provide evidence of the subjects of this article doing as described, then that would be allowed and you'd have a point. GenQuest "scribble" 04:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because it was your own interpretation of a comedy sketch. Supporting references to reliable sources are needed to support any such claim. It is highly concerning that this article ever contained such material - the whole article seems to be a case of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Nick-D (talk) 08:13, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Over-detailed

[edit]

This article has many problems, but perhaps the main one is that it is absurdly over-detailed. Little effort seems to have been made to write in summary style as is required for Wikipedia articles. Instead, much of the text is written like news stories, with lots of detail on topics that can be briefly described. Merging yet more verbose stuff from other articles in is making this problem worse, and I've just revert the addition of large amounts of text from the New South Wales Police Force strip search scandal (Law Enforcement Conduct Commission investigations) article where no attempt was being made to provide a summary. Nick-D (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: There does seem to be a lot of detail, and I think that is what makes it seem as if someone is trying to do a little WP:RGW. Perhaps a certain amount of detail is unavoidable, but finding the proper balance is probably going to take a bit of time. I think the subject is probably notable and a certain amount of detail is unavoidable, but perhaps some content could be trimmed or should be removed altogether to make the article more of a summary of what the major media organizations have reported on, Originally, there were three of four separate articles related to this subject and those were very detailed as well. There might also be another merge possiblity that needs to be discussed if this draft also ends up in the mainspace. Anyway, figuring out where to start might the the first thing to do, and perhaps in this case it's best to start at the top. The article's lead has about 50 citations (this includes the sources cited multiple times) which seems (at least to me) that the lead is too long and overly detailed per MOS:LEAD. Perhaps the place to start would be with the lead, and then move down through the rest of the article. The "Background" section could probably be trimmed from what it is now to one or two paragraphs and the two sections on the Ombudsman's reports could be trimmed, combined and then incorporated into the "Background" section as an additional single paragraph. Maybe after the lead and the "Background" sections have been sorted out, it will be easier to figure out how to sort out the rest. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This issue seems to warrant only a single article, not least as splitting it across articles gives the impression Wikipedia is being used as a resource for a campaign rather than as an encyclopedia. A lot of the material in this article is too detailed, or repeats itself (all the accounts about people's horrible experiences with these searches in the article are basically identical, which isn't surprising given the police were following standardised procedures). Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_South_Wales_Police_Force_strip_search_scandal&oldid=1207184262"