Talk:Philadelphia Police Department

County and Sheriff

Some mention of the county of Philadelphia and the limited duties of the Sheriff's office should be made here. 209.92.136.131 22:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Wall of honour

I'm not too sure that this should be included. I mean no disrespect for the fallen officers, but 'What Wikipeida is not', Wikipedia isn't a memorial site, as has been pointed out to me a few times when I've seen other articles with lists such as these. SGGH 13:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point. However, my interpretation of the "non-memorial" clause is that no entry should be created for the sole purpose to honor a person who has passed. For example, if my mother passed, I should not, as a member of the community, create a entry for the accomplishments of my mother...even if they are great.

The Wall of Honor here is a section of the Article, not THE article. This is information regarding the history of the department. Some who are interested, may reference the list to further cross-reference a time period that they know. For example, in Philadlphia history, a Police officer was killed during the first "confrontation" with members of the organizathion MOVE. No officer was killed in the second confrontation. Given this example, a person who knew the officer who was killed would be able to see that it occured in 1978, not 1985.Jlivewell 15:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The memorial clause also states that the person should be notable. What makes these people anymore notable than any other fallen public servant? Jeek X 05:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed it.--M.U.D. (talk) 16:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I Have to agree with Jlivewellon this one, the guidelines are focused on the creation of an article. Using such broad guideline as seems to be proposed, would also would eliminate say list of persons being buried at certain cemeteries, deceased alumni of schools, ect ect. With that being said however the full list is very much overkill, and i would move to trim it down to those who have their own articles on Wikipedia or are associated with articles on Wikipedia with a relevant link to those article, think along the lines of Daniel Faulkner, and an external link should be provided for the full list. The section it's self should stay however. Also M.U.D., just because you agree, and no relevant discussion has happened, in 2 years, does not give you carte blanch to remove it. --boothy443(t|c|o|r|e) 18:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Notable Events

Videotape of Beatings of Suspects

How is this NPOV? It is factual and provides balance to otherwise pro-Philly PD article. It should not be deleted.--68.80.176.149 (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this incident worth a cited-mention, maybe. But will this be considered a "Notable event" in the history of the PPD in two months? Doubtful, but maybe. As a separate section it was WP:Undue Weight. I will also note that other content was removed. Mitico (talk) 02:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

10,000 Men

Any reason not to trim down some detail (specifically census stuff) & move "Call to Action: 10,000 Men" section to notable events section? Mitico (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Red squad cars

Probably worth mentioning that patrol cars of the 1950s (and possibly earlier periods) were painted red [1]. A very noteworthy color scheme, in that it's historically associated with fire and danger services. knoodelhed (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from this URL: http://www.phila.gov/phils/docs/inventor/graphics/agencies/A079.htm. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. While federal government websites are generally public domain, this is not true of state and local governments, and the City of Philadelphia expressly reserves copyright for material on its websites here. For more information on verifying permission to use this text, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Charges of brutality

This is a rewrite of a section that was added to the article. Another editor deleted the original while I was reworking it, then undid my revision,

== Corruption and brutality ==
{{unsourcedsect}}
The Philadelphia police department to present day has a long history of brutality{{fact}} to the citizenry it is sworn to protect and serve. The department has had a large number of complaints of officers handcuffing suspects then beating them.{{fact}} A notable and nationwide event was after an officer, Sergeant Stephen Liczbinski, was murdered. In the aftermath, 9 officers pulled over 3 suspects who vaguely fit the suspect's description, handcuffed them, then beat them.{{fact}} Although the department fired two of the officers involved,{{fact}} the remaining officers were only reprimanded.{{fact}} To this day it is considered by many civil rights groups to be the most brutal police department in the United States.{{fact}}

So, since the discussion page is where we go to resolve disputes, let me ask - does this need to be sourced before inclusion? WP:5 is, IMO, not too clear in this case. My thought is to allow these assertions to remain in the article, tagged per above, for a short period. Either the original editor, or someone else reading it, will be prompted to provide citations. If they remain uncited after a week (for example), remove them. Thoughts? Vulture19 (talk) 05:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Revisited

The Philadelphia Daily News coverage of the Philadelphia Narcotics Field Unit under Jeffrey Cujdik has won a Pulitzer ([2]). Can the info be included now, as it seems WAY pertinent to this article? --78.34.98.253 (talk) 01:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Misconduct Section

I am a fan of misconduct sections. But this one has gotten out of hand purely in terms of size. It needs to have sections by year and it ought to be made its own article. I ask for comments before I act on this. "Speak now or forever hold your peace," as they say. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 13:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

SECONDED! The misconduct section was long for many very good reasons.

Here's another one.

As I wrote a few minutes ago in a new section below— I don't know what happened to your article, but it was excellent and it has been thrown into the memory hole, presumably by those condemned by the truth. Someone with a social conscience and more WikiSkillz than I, please find and restore it— don't let the police state get away with this RIDICULOUS whitewash. Kaecyy (talk) 07:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Relevance of Misconduct

The omitted misconduct section is especially relevant to the upcoming Democratic Convention. The recurring accusations of massive election fraud will most likely lead to the kind of demonstrations and confrontations not seen since the 1968 Chicago convention. Here is a starting point for the kind of information that should be included as fair warning to the demonstrators: "Police misconduct in Philadelphia, by the numbers" https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2014/oct/20/philly-lawsuits/} Page Notes (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia aims to provide neutral summaries of information reported in independent reliable sources. We should no more include "fair warning" to anyone based on your opinions re police conduct than we should warn them re my opinions of the difficulties I expect they'll have finding parking in Philly or the fat content of the massive number of cheesesteaks I believe they'll eat. Similarly, we don't include predictions of future events. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Fallen officers

Why is this section so unlike those on other PD pages? Most have asimple table and avoid a legal term such as "murdered." Futher this is a very old department, but the section goes only a few years. The ODMP provides all the information, it need only be placed in the usual format. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 07:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The section is a problem. None of them are sourced. We cannot say "murdered" unless there is a reliable source saying there was a trial and conviction. Further, it seems to be more of a memorial than an encyclopedic entry. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I believe that all of the officers listed were indeed murdered; that is, their killers were actually convicted of a degree of murder or, in at least one case, homicide. The problem is that nobody wants to perform the tedious task of sourcing every entry using major media references. Any takers? Also, the ODMP is cited in other PD articles, so why not here?--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

As explained in my edit summary, the source does not say the officers were "murdered", listing officers who have died in the line of duty from numerous causes (including heat stroke and heart attacks (unless the sun and donuts are murderers...)).

The section seems to be trying to make a point of listing officers who were "murdered". The fact that sourcing it would be a laborious task is indicative that this is not really an encyclopedic section about the Philly PD. We do not have independent reliable sources discussing the Philly PD which then list officers who were murdered (presumably in the line of duty). Instead, we're looking for individual articles about the individual officers' killers' trial outcomes. Tracing back, we are taking individual murder convictions -> killers -> victim -> victim was Philly PD officer. This would be similar to a list of drunk drivers who were members of an auto club in the article about the auto club.

In any case, in a manslaughter case, it should NOT be listed under a heading with "murder" in it. This is a WP:BLP issue. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Your and PaulinDaudis' objections about the murdered officers section make sense, so I just deleted it and linked the main article in the same spot. Should we just completely delete the movies/television/books section? --PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 13:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

In popular culture

This section is a trivial list of occurrences. As the tag says, "Please reorganize this content to explain the subject's impact on popular culture rather than simply listing appearances." This section is essentially a list of books, films, etc. where the Philly PD appears. It does not -- in any way -- discuss or explain the PPD's impact on popular culture. Instead, it is a trivial list, mostly sourced to the occurrences themselves. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I am afraid that I must agree that this section is fluff, as I have noted in a prior edit. However, the section is a simple list of PPD-related movies, books and television, not a true popular culture section whose entries should have profound meaning. I do not see the harm in leaving it as is.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

It is pointless fluff. "(Whatever movie/book/TV show/play/comic strip/comic book/short story/radio ad/etc.) had a Philadelphia police officer in it" does not tell readers anything about the Philadelphia Police Department. Imagine the list we could have at President of the United States or Pacific Ocean. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your objections. Feel free to delete the whole section.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, the section should remain but merely list reality shows, documentaries, and other nonfiction works. The fiction stuff is worthless fluff.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 13:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

"Misconduct cases (corruption or brutality)"

I have attempted to rename this section "Misconduct" as the target article, Misconduct in the Philadelphia Police Department, is not limited to cases of corruption and brutality. Another editor disagrees saying, "ONLY corruption or brutality cases are listed; this is not a "curiously narrow interpretation" of police misconduct."[3]

1) The target article is titled Misconduct in the Philadelphia Police Department. It should be about Police misconduct: "

   *Noble cause corruption, where the officer believes the good outcomes justify bad behavior[5]
   *Selective enforcement (knowledge and allowances of violations by friends, family and/or acquaintances unreported)
   *Abuses of power (using badge or other ID to gain entry into concerts, to get discounts, etc.)
   *Police perjury (blatant lying under oath and/or to other authorities to cover wrongdoing)
   *Influence of drugs and/or alcohol while on duty
   *Violations by officers of police procedural policies"

2) The target article is currently a misguided list of some randomly selected instances that some editor or another believe are cases of PPD misconduct, including such things as off-duty behavior wholly unrelated to the PPD and off-duty suicides.

If this section of the current article is supposed to be about just police corruption and brutality, the word "misconduct" does not belong in the section heading. Additionally, we will need independent reliable sources discussing corruption and brutality separately from other misconduct. Finally, such a section should not be connected to an article that is about Police misconduct.- SummerPhD (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems that "police misconduct" could easily be applied to all of the cases presently listed. I do not know why you express such passion, rage, indignation, and bluster about bona fide contributions that were made to an encyclopedia. It is okay to have an opinion, but you are not always right by default. Also, you have already stated that suicides belonged on another similar article, but curiously rationalize that they do not belong here. All of the police wrongdoing is related to their on-duty activities, and some of the PPD suicides were indeed on-duty. Suicide is a felony, results in death, and is thus police misconduct.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I have neither passion nor rage norindignation nor bluster about any contributions here. I have neither said nor implied that I am right by default. I have not stated that suicides belong in Misconduct in the Philadelphia Police Department (I twice indicated I feel they do not belong there.) Several suicides included in the article were off-hours (or thought to have been) or had resigned from the PPD before they killed themselves and, therefore, do not seem to fit any definition of police misconduct I can imagine. "Suicide is not illegal within any state in the United States."[4]

Personally, I think this points to a lack of clear, objective inclusion criteria in that article.- SummerPhD (talk) 00:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I did not say that you stated that police suicides belong on the PPD misconduct page. I indicated that you believed they belonged on a similar article (not about the PPD). I stand corrected about suicide being a crime; I was relying on archaic info. Nonetheless, some of the police suicides were on-duty and involved actual crimes, such as Cpl. Levitt's arson and firearm violation. Erroneously listing police suicides does not point "to a lack of clear, objective inclusion criteria in that article."--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

What similar article did I say police suicides belong in?

The article includes off-duty suicides and a suicide by a former cop. I do not feel these are "police misconduct". I have not removed them yet because we still do not have clear, objective inclusion criteria in that article. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I have already admitted that I was wrong to believe that police suicides were illegal (I was relying on a book I had read in grade school). But you did agree that suicides belonged on another (non-police) article because other editors had posted them there. I am not a liar, but if you want to verify my claim, simply check your responses to my prior posts. Trust me, you will find it.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I did not say or imply that you are a liar. I asked a simple question: What similar article did I say police suicides belong in? - SummerPhD (talk) 01:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

No, not POLICE suicides. By "they", I meant suicides in general. I do not remember the name of the article and I am not going to waste time researching it, but I am telling the truth. You had quoted the inclusion criteria for another article, possibly about a foreign army, and seemed to agree that suicides (unrelated to police) should be included. Note that I have already agreed that police suicides do no belong in the referenced articles, except the ones that involved serious crimes, such as Cpl. Levitt's arson and firearm discharge on police property.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

You said: "I did not say that you stated that police suicides belong on the PPD misconduct page. I indicated that you believed they belonged on a similar article (not about the PPD)." OK, clarifications: "they" does not refer to "police suicides" in the previous sentence and "List of deaths at the Berlin Wall" is somehow similar to (List of cases of) "Misconduct in the Philadelphia Police Department"... I did not indicate suicides "belonged" in that article. I said that article "...uses unambiguous, objective criteria based on reliable sources."[5] It does: objective criteria from The Centre for Contemporary History and the Berlin Wall Memorial Site and Documentation Centre. We need objective criteria from an independent reliable source. Subjective criteria from a Wikipedia editor are not acceptable under the relevent guideline. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Instead of using an electron microscope to find reasons to prove how dumb I am and that you were right, please stay focused on discussing the inclusion criteria. I have already conceded my error on the police suicide issue; please move on. I did not dispute your "nuking" of the PPD line-of-duty murder list from the main PPD article because you have not objected to the separate PPD line-of-duty fatality article that has existed for years. I have no clue about why you would object to a separate article that lists major police misconduct, while simultaneously permitting a police fatality list. To me, the misconduct list is even more worthy of encyclopedia inclusion because police officers are supposed to uphold the law, not break it. Conversely, fatalities in the line of duty are expected and somewhat routine, if tragic. My criteria for inclusion are not "subjective" by default of having already been established by other, far more experienced editors who are very sophisticated about Wiki's policies. --PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Any time someone says I did something that I did not do, I will respond. If they concede I was right AFTER I respond and tell me that I should not have responded, it is a strange turn of events...

Yes, I argued a list did not belong in one article. That other articles exist that I am not working on does not mean I think those other articles are shining examples of what Wikipedia is or should be.

Yes, your criteria are Original research as they are not from an independent reliable source. Please read WP:LSC and explain how you believe this is not the case. Yes, "serious misdemeanor", "major misconduct", "significant", a "(first degree) misdemeanor or felony case", "particularly egregious", "felony or a serious misdemeanor (alleged or proven)" are subjective. If you think they are "objective", you might be using a different meaning of the words "subjective" and "objective". "Particularly egregious" (etc.) is a matter of opinion (i.e., "subjective"). One person might feel that driving through a 15 mph school zone at 50+ mph is "particularly egregious". Others might not. It is a subjective issue. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, we get it, you have memorized this website's policies, procedures and semantics, and have a rigid, black and white, one dimensional interpretation of them, which you believe is the lone interpretation that matters. I am not working on a thesis or doctorate in an air-headed liberal art that anyone who can recite the alphabet can get. I am merely trying to make and retain bona fide contributions to an online encyclopedia's article. As such, I prefer not to do untold hours of research on said website's policies, etc. The only justifications that I need to support my stated position are that, according to Wikipedia, when making contributions "common sense" should be used and there are no rules "carved in stone". My prior posts further explain this reasoning. I have asked for your assistance in finding ways around your perception that a police misconduct article should not list cases thereof, but you have refused to help, which suggests that you are more interested in nuking the contributions of others than in helping them contribute. I do not need condescending hypotheses and analogies to understand your reasoning, so kindly refrain from using them. The PPD misconduct article has been around since July of last year, so I have no idea about why you have taken so long to attack it. I am awaiting a response from a higher up, so please do not make any changes until he intervenes.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss content not editors.

If you disagree with my interpretation of our policies and guidelines, you will need to explain why, not merely claim I am wrong. WP:LSC says your ambiguous, subjective, and unsourced proposal is unacceptable. Please discuss WP:LSC.

I have already explained why in prior posts, but you have chosen to ignore my comments. I am still awaiting a response from a higher up who may have suggestions for retaining much of the referenced article. Please refrain from posting on my talk page; discuss your issues here. I had requested help with another article on your talk page, but you then blocked me.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Your proposed criteria and ambiguous, subjective and unsourced, directly contrary to WP:LSC. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

No, they are not: "There are some common exceptions to the typical notability requirement: If the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement need not be met. If a person in a list does not have a Wikipedia article about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to: a) establish their membership in the list's group; and b) to establish their notability on either BLP1E or BIO1E."--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for finally using a policy. Unfortunately, you are answering a non-point.

• Your criteria are ambiguous (i.e., they are not clear-cut, black and white, yes or no questions): Does an accusation involve a felony or misdemeanor? Who knows? Sources do not generally include this.
• Your criteria are subjective: "Serious misdemeanor"? "Particularly egregious"? These are subjective.
• Your criteria are unsourced: You came up with the criteria (felony or serious misdemeanor, $100,000 settlement/ruling, etc.) - SummerPhD (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

This post amounts to a personal attack, by your standards: "Thank you for finally using a policy." Listing the huge number of Philadelphia police misconduct cases warns readers to avoid contact with cops in that city. That benefit alone trumps any technicality that you have cited: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules AND Wikipedia:You Can't Follow All The Rules, All The Time.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It was neither personal nor an attack.

Your strong opinions re the Philadelphia Police Department -- while interesting in light of your work here -- are irrelevant. The "benefit" that you perceive -- much like your thoughts that a list of Philadelphia Fire Department death might serve as a training aid -- is not an appropriate goal for an encyclopedia. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Your opinions about my contributions are irrelevant. You have no more authority than I at Wikipedia, although you are certainly entitled to your policy interpretations. Full disclosure: I am a conservative who is only interested in publishing facts about PPD corruption/brutality and all other government wrongdoing; I otherwise support the police and all other government agencies. According to other police misconduct articles, findings of police misconduct include terminations, suspensions, government-sanctioned study results, and the like. Please show me even a single entry on the PPD misconduct page that does not have at least one of the aforementioned findings. As per the Wikipedia founder's "60 Minutes" interview that was aired Sunday, Wikipedia is intended to help people and sometimes includes articles that do not belong according to its policies, but get published anyway because they benefit the public. Philadelphia has a serious problem with police abuses. The fact that, for instance, "tens of thousands" of black and Latino males are illegally stopped and searched annually should be publicized so that potential visitors or residents know the score and are thus warned away. It is not as if Wikipedia is hurting for space.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

You seem to feel that everything is irrelevant in the face of your perceptions of the Philadelphia Police Department. You are mistaken. The rest of your questions were asked elsewhere and answered there]. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

You seem to feel that "everything" is irrelevant in the face of your one dimensional perceptions of Wiki's policies. It is you who is mistaken if you believe that major cases should not be listed in a police misconduct article. The public's right to know these socially pertinent facts trumps all objections based on technicalities. Such knowledge could even prevent a would-be deadly interaction with crooked cops. What harm could possibly be done to anyone should the PPD misconduct article in its current form be allowed to persist? I am sure that Wiki's founder would agree.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, your crusade is clear: Must. Bury. PPD. That is not what an encyclopedia is for. You will need to go elsewhere to "right this great wrong". Accusations do not belong here as they are not examples of "misconduct". Your personally set criteria are not encyclopedic and you haven't followed them. In the cause of attacking the current PPD, you have heavily biased the article toward recent events. While you see this as an important service to the world, you are way out of line. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Your "crusade" is clearer: you want to hide PPD misconduct using warped interpretations of Wiki's policies that conveniently and illogically rationalize the exclusion of facts, at least as other editors' contributions to police articles suggest.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 13:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

You continue to make WP:WAX arguments and say I am warping policies without explaining how I am warping them. That is not debate, it is sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "Nu uh!" - SummerPhD (talk) 02:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I repeat, in my opinion, Wiki's policies that allow the injection of common sense and for the rules to be ignored trump your interpretations of other policies which you believe support your position. It is curious that you have chosen to argue with me, an admitted Wiki amateur, instead of the seasoned pros who have allowed "controversies" to be entered into their misconduct articles of the NYPD, RCMP, etc. (a BLATANT violation of Wiki's policies, no matter how you slice it).--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 11:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:WAX. Again and again and again. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

ALERT! ALERT! Orwellian removal of Misconduct SECTION and ENTIRE SEPARATE "Misconduct in the Philadelphia Police Department" ARTICLE

I just want to draw attention to the fact that until recently there was an excellent, separate article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misconduct_in_the_Philadelphia_Police_Department

That URL now links to the general Philadelphia Police Department article... which includes NO misconduct section, and NONE of the excellent and often damning incidents that were in the previous article— particularly the comprehensive report done on Philadelphia police misconduct and corruption in the 1970s (which had it's own section in that article), whose findings stand to the present as far as the public is aware.

Therefore, I can only conclude that a whitewashing has been enacted on behalf of this corrupt organization. I move that this Orwellian bullshit be reversed, and the original article be reinstated. Kaecyy (talk) 07:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Wow.....have you tried actually asking why it was removed or had any sort of discussion at all before you "concluded" something with essentially no information? Hyperbole isn't convincing. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@SummerPhD:Pinging Summer for this thread too. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarification, I meant to say "hypothesize" rather than "conclude". The differences in the article are truly shocking. Kaecyy (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Still, you've cited no policy or guideline, just yelled a lot. You've demonstrated a clear point of view issue and them accused others of not just wrong-doing, but conspiring to be part of a giant cover-up. Again, all without a single bit of discussion. Have you ever read WP:AGF? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
• We're discussing it now, my friend. Yeah... just a little yellin', not a lot. I didn't mean to offend you, it's not your good faith question. The policy and guideline I'm citing is the truth. Have you ever ever read the history of the police since their inception? Slimy stuff— lawlessness, murders, conspiracies, corruption, and cover-ups are often standard operating procedure in their game, not to mention a healthy side of subjugation of the working class, and racism to keep 'em divided. It's not "just a few bad apples", violations of the rights of all of us to life, liberty, justice, and pursuit of happiness are just their thing, what can I say. I've seen it, and they should be outright disbanded— we have a right to a better civilization than this. Sometimes a man can't just WP:AGF when the Imperial stormtroopers are at their wicked work on our streets and on our net. Kaecyy (talk) 08:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, you ranted, I replied, you posted a sentence in response. You've posted nothing really discussing it. And yes, this is a serious good faith issue. Your initial rant said "I can only conclude that a whitewashing has been enacted on behalf of this corrupt organization". You accused people of editing on behalf of PPD as part of a conspiracy. Yes, my friend, that is a bad faith allegation. Twice you went with the hyperbole "Orwellian", again implying that there is a government conspiracy involved. More bad faith. Then you say you can't AGF because of more hyperbole about Imperial Stormtroopers (I guess this became a Star Wars movie). I'd suggest you actually read AGF. It has nothing to do with assuming good faith about the PPD. I has to do with assuming good faith about other Wikipedia editors. When you start claiming they're part of government conspiracies with no evidence beyond your opinion, you're not assuming good faith. Since you mentioned that you've had personal involvement with alleged misconduct, I'd suggest you first read WP:COI. Then try WP:SOAPBOX and WP:TRUTH. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• You make some valid points, my friend. You sound overly aggressive in your presentation, however, which only hurts our connection and this project— it would be hard to WP:AGF about you if I didn't think you were genuinely well-meaning (though apparently lacking in constructive social skills in your presentation). Obviously we're not actually talking about Star Wars, for example, but if you thought so... super sad. Finally, the definition of rant for your elucidation:

rant |rant| verb [ intrans. ] speak or shout at length in a wild, impassioned way : she was still ranting on about the unfairness of it all. noun a spell of ranting; a tirade : his rants against organized religion

There weren't enough exclamation points in my post to qualify as a "rant", nor was the length sufficient. I also suggest looking up the word "hyperbole"— your use of the word tends toward the hyperbolic. Cheers, Officer. Kaecyy (talk) 13:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, any aggression in this discussion has been yours. As for your personal attacks and other nonsense that have been removed, well, I'm sorry you are incapable of discussing this without them. No, obviously this isn't a Star Wars movie. Equally obvious is your inability to detect sarcasm. I'm sorry that your education hasn't led you to the other definitions of the word rant. Here is one: "to talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner". Since typing in all caps is the online equivalent of shouting, we've got loud covered. You even called it yelling. Excited? When you start with ALERT! ALERT!, you come off as excited. Declamatory? (expressing feelings or opinions in a way that is loud and forceful). We've covered loud and when you start calling things "Orwellian bullshit", alleging that editors on working on behalf of someone to cover up "the truth", that sounds forceful. Notice the definition has nothing to do with length or number of exclamation points. If it were very long, I might call it a tirade. Perhaps that's the word you thought I was using. So yeah, I'll stick with the word rant. I'll stick with my use of hyperbole too. I know it's not as intellectual sounding as "prick" or "dickweed", but I'll keep it anyway. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
• You've mischaracterized what was censored. Grossly. And there wasn't any other "nonsense" removed. There is a strong history of what I alleged on Wikipedia, particularly in the corporate sphere. Look it up, better thyself, and go in peace, my man. Neither of us stands to gain by fighting one another. I wish you all the best.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/16/nypd-wikipedia-edits-punishment_n_6880020.html

Kaecyy (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• I'm talking about the words you wrote in your last response, the words that another editor warned you about. Calling someone a prick or a dickweed is a person attack. There's no "mischaracterization" involved, let alone a gross one. And just because something has happened on Wikipedia doesn't mean you can accuse others of it right out of the box. From your very first post here, you alleged a conspiracy. It was wrong of you to do without evidence and your lack of AGF set a bad tone. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Now that we are done talking about who said what about whom and whether or not anyone is "censoring" anything, do we have specific, reliably sourced material to add to the article or policy-based issues with what is already here? (If there are any complaints about a specific editor, please take it to that editor's talk page or seek some other method to resolve the issue. This page is for discussing improvements to the article.) Thanks. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Well I did ping you since you were the one who removed the material. It seemed you'd be the best one to explain your policy based reasoning for removing it. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't get the ping. I've lost the SummerPhD account's password and have been editing as SummerPhDv2.0.

Most of the material in Misconduct in the Philadelphia Police Department had been contributed by PhiladelphiaInjustice, who repeatedly stated that the article was vitally important so that potential visitors to Philadelphia know about what they considered to be a major, current problem and were warned away. When told this was not consistent with our policies, they quoted Jimbo saying something to the effect of stepping outside of our mission in order to better serve society.

The article being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cases of police brutality in the United States is illustrative. We do not have objective, sourced criteria for what constitutes "police brutality", nor do we have selection criteria to prevent the article from being a random selection of cases or every case in the past 250 years. Similarly, we did not have objective, sourced criteria for what constitutes "misconduct". We also had no limiting criteria to whittle down the list of cases from Philadelphia's 350 years. Instead, we had a random list of cases PhiladelphiaInjustice felt were misconduct. As part of their crusade, the list was clearly biased toward recent events ("recentism"). The ONLY PPD misconduct listed prior to 1974 was one case in 1967? That is laughable. Compared to the listings since the growth of the Internet (circa 1995), the Frank Rizzo years were apparently an idyllic era of calm and serenity. For 1967 - 1980 (with Rizzo as Commissioner or Mayor), we listed ONE case and two reports that it was a huge, on-going problem... Take the same length of time from today back to mid 2000, we listed over 200 cases. Some of those cases, though, were quite puzzling. We had officers who committed suicide, which PhiladelphiaInjustice apparently believed is "misconduct". We had various cases where police committed or were alleged to have committed crimes completely unrelated to the PPD, which we've still decided are "misconduct". Several of the cases were for alleged crimes committed before or after the accused were on the force. Notably absent from the list were discussion of selective enforcement, police perjury, abuse of power, procedural violations, etc.

We had the case of a "whistleblower and hero cop" who "died in a mysterious on-the-job scuba diving incident the day after he testified against Sergeant (redacted) at a disciplinary hearing. Even knowing that (redacted), a marine unit diver decorated for bravery, was a possible retaliation target whose diving equipment may have been sabotaged, (redacted)'s fellow law enforcement officers delayed in responding to his calls for help while he was underwater and entangled in his scuba gear - and likewise waited before bringing him to a hospital. (redacted)'s mother sued the city and federal government in federal court, settling for an undisclosed amount." The sources said nothing whatsoever of the supposed group murder of the officer, possible retaliation, possibly sabotaged equipment, etc. No mention of a settlement (just the case filing which did not allege misconduct). In fact, rather than PPD officers failing to rescue the officer, it was "the crew of 18 aboard the cutter and eight more Coast Guard officers on two other vessels attempted a rescue". There were no cops involved in a plot because there were no cops there. That issue was one of many, discussed on the talk page and archives at Talk:Misconduct_in_the_Philadelphia_Police_Department.

As with the AfD'd case listed above, PhiladelphiaInjustice seemed to not hear that I could not find objective, sourced criteria and insisted that I create criteria. When I stated that our policies specifically prohibited the type of article they wanted, they demanded that I find policies that would allow it. Eventually, I started an RfC.

As the article's title suggested an article about misconduct, rather than a list of cases, the closing admin stated, "This article is about the subject of misconduct in the Philadelphia PD. It may contain a brief list of notable instances. If many notable instances exist, they may be spun out into a separate list. Any list must be duly mindful of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV generally and WP:WEIGHT in particular, WP:TABLOID and sundry other WP:TLAs designed to remind editors of the virtue of good editorial judgment." Finding no obvious way forward, other than a complete rewrite from scratch (we had a list, we needed an article), I waited a month or so from the closing and redirected here. The title is available for a prose article, which may include a list of notable cases (MOVE comes to mind, as do racial unrest around the 1960s, Prohibition corruption, police-involved nativist riots, the Civil War riots and unrest relating to slavery, the Revolutionary War, etc.

For anyone interested, the article's history (including dozens of individual event rewrites and removals) and the talk page (and archives) are available. For the record, PhiladelphiaInjustice directly accused me of being part of or working on behalf of the PPD. I explained my minimal interactions with/connections to the PPD here.

That's the birdseye summary. I welcome specific questions. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks. I agree with the removal, just thought it would be informative for Kaecyy and the Orwellian theory. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Doubleplusgood. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Philadelphia Police Department. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090115004913/http://www.kyw1060.com:80/Phila--to-Rebuild-Its-Mounted-Police-Unit/2623923 to http://www.kyw1060.com/Phila--to-Rebuild-Its-Mounted-Police-Unit/2623923

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

MOVE headquarters bombed by Philadelphia Police Department

Recently my edit of the Philadelphia Police Department wiki page which included the police bombing of the MOVE headquarters was removed with an allegation of heavy POV. I have a suspicion that all posts relating to the MOVE bombing and the PPD repression of black communities will be wrongfully removed by people with strong racially biased motives. Please remember that according to the wikipedia guidelines that articles should always remain neutral and stick to facts over opinion. I'm glad we can all agree to remain neutral and put our personal biases aside and that any edits which include the bombing of the MOVE headquarters will not arbitrarily be deleted. Office worm (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Please note, when editing articles, our normal process is the bold, revert, discuss cycle. If you boldly make a change and your change is reverted, it is time to discuss your proposed change. Restoring the change without discussion is rarely productive.

As you have gone so quickly to "strong racially biased motives", I will say only the following: If you believe anyone is editing other than with the intent to build a better encyclopedia, such discussion is unlikely to be productive on article talk pages. While you may wish to ask about motives on the user's talk page, allegations of racial bias are likely best addressed at a higher venue. While numerous options are available (see, for example, WP:DISPUTE), intractable bias often needs to be addressed at the administrator level (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents). In any case, I strongly discourage leveling such charges against individuals on article talk pages as such is likely to be seen as a personal attack.

With that out of the way, content is the issue.

Your original change was incorrectly placed and added strongly worded claims, many of which are indirectly claims about living people.

Your addition was to the lead section (sometimes "lede") of the article. Per our Manual of Style, this section is meant to serve as an overall summary of the article and generally should not require sources as all material summarized in the lead should be discussed and sourced later in the article. Yes, the May 1985 attempt to serve arrest warrants, armed standoff, gun fight, bombing of the fortified bunker, ensuing fire, deaths and property destruction were a significant event. However, this article is about much more than the events of that one day. Your addition doubled the length of the lead section, implying far more importance to that day than the article supports.

As for the content itself, let's start start with the basic idea here that the event is notable in its own right, has its own article section (at MOVE) and the content here should be a summary of the material in that article. The concept here is both consistency and simplicity. Rather than nailing down what to say here and then working it out independently at several other articles (John Africa, Wilson Goode, Cobbs Creek, etc.).

Next up is your source. This seems rather biased, making numerous claims quite at odds with the story outlined at MOVE#1985_bombing. Your edit reflects that source and take it a step further: While the POV source puts the claim that police shot at people trying to escape the fire on Ramona Africa's lips ("Ramona Africa, one of two survivors, stated that police shot live rounds at people who attempted to flew [sic] the inferno." You've changed this into a fact: "Police...shot at people who tried to escape the fire. ... Police attempted to shoot MOVE members fleeing from the fire." You state the events made the PPD "infamous", start the events with the bombing, have the bombing "killing eleven MOVE members including five children" (I don't believe the bombing directly killed anyone, the resulting fire did.). Your telling has no prior history with the group (gunfights, etc.), no arrest warrants, no fortifications, no shots fired from the building, no attempts with bullhorns, fire hoses and tear gass to empty the building, etc. Instead, the "infamous" PPD simply came in, bombed the house and using thousands of rounds of gunfire to make sure everyone stays in and dies. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Alleged Neo-Nazi tattoo

This edit restores material I had previously removed as a WP:WEIGHT issue. This article is about the entire 150+ year history of the police department of one of the largest cities in the world. Recent allegations that a photo show a tattoo that is allegedly a Nazi symbol, with further allegations sourced only to "activists" in a questionable source does not merit its own section.

The original editor restored the issue without comment, directly contrary to WP:BRD. I had warned them for similar behavior on a similar issue in this article recently.[6]

In addition to allotting too much of the article to one ill-defined recent issue, the edit is heavily biased, as was the case with the prior issue.[7]

For the present issue, the edit in question again makes claims drawn from and expanding upon an unreliable source. Allegations by ambiguous "activists" are related as facts. Reliable sources on the incident make far less serious charges, casting considerable doubt on the allegations.

Please note the officer in question is a living person. As such, WP:BLP applies. Do not restore the material until a consensus to do so has been demonstrated. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Your edits and reasoning are completely sound. I'll keep an eye as well. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Philadelphia Police Department. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004213850/http://www.17thppd.org/about/staff to http://www.17thppd.org/about/staff

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 05:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

POV editing

Mabuckle has been asked several times by multiple editors to discuss the issues they have with this cluster of pages, including their strong preference to refer to the 1985 MOVE incident as the "1985 Cops from Hell Bombing." which, in addition to having unnecessary capitalization, stray punctuation and being non-descriptive, seems to have a decidedly heavy POV.

The incident from their summary seems to start with a bomb being dropped. While the group's prior involvement with the city/police certainly factors in, I would think the attempt to deliver arrest warrants, armed standoff and prolonged gun battle along with the ensuing fire would perhaps have something to do with the naming of the situation.

I have suggested "1985 MOVE confrontation". This title gives the name of the group involved, though "1985 MOVE confrontation with police" might be more accurate (though wordy). It also changes it from a random decision to drop a bomb to a "hostile meeting between opposing parties". I also chose "police" rather than "Cops from Hell" because "cops" is slang and there is no indication that the police involved are actually from the mythical Christian pit of fire. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Let's see

You cannot consider this information unreliable because you are not from the United States and you have no idea of its history, and you do not know these websites that know more than you, it has become clear.Juglar53 18:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.47.32.153 (talk)

@Juglar53: Please try to stay logged-in when editing whenever possible, rather than sometimes editing anonymously, which can cause confusion. Thanks for discussing this at the talk page rather than edit warring. Your argument doesn't hold much weight, though: editors from around the world are encouraged to edit articles about U.S. topics (and Americans to edit articles about other topics), and there's no obvious reason why non-Americans would have trouble determining that "what-when-how.com" is less of a reliable source than a book by credentialled experts published by an established academic press. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see that the (sometimes) anonymous editor who's been trying to add an earlier date of establishment to the infobox has deigned to add that date alongside, rather than in place of, the later date, but it's still not acceptable in the absence of a reliable source—which "what-when-how.com" is definitely not. If they could explain their thinking here rather than continuing to restore the poorly-sourced claim without discussion, that would be appreciated. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Joseph Bologna

100.34.29.36 has twice added the word "allegedly" to the sentence on this incident. While we do of course want to avoid seeming to accuse individuals of crimes of which they haven't been convicted, in this case it's very clear from the source cited that Bologna at no point denied having struck a protester, but rather acknowledged that he did so and argued that he was justified in doing so. While he only allegedly committed aggravated assault, he factually hit someone with a stick. I'd be interested to know what others think though. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Bias

Literally the first thing about the police department is about police brutality. It just seems extremely biased to me against police. 2601:1C2:C100:D7A0:D907:7D46:A367:52DD (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)