Talk:Police abolition movement

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Police abolition movement article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

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

Article policies

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

Archives: 1: 365 days

Black Lives Matter Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Black Lives Matter, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Black Lives Matter on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Black Lives MatterWikipedia:WikiProject Black Lives MatterTemplate:WikiProject Black Lives MatterBlack Lives Matter articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
	This article was created or improved during WikiProject Black Lives Matter's June 2020 edit-a-thon.

Law Enforcement Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Sociology: Social Movements Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the social movements task force.

United States: History Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Mid-importance).

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Yoninah (talk) 11:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

"Defund the police" sign held by a demonstrator at a George Floyd protest on June 5, 2020

~~... that defunding the police is being demanded by protestors (pictured) and proposed by legislators in multiple US cities?~~ Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/05/us/defund-police-floyd-protests.html “'We are going to dismantle the Minneapolis Police Department,' Jeremiah Ellison, a member of the City Council, said on Twitter this week. 'And when we’re done, we’re not simply gonna glue it back together,' he added. 'We are going to dramatically rethink how we approach public safety and emergency response.' " "At least three others, including the City Council president, Lisa Bender, have also called for taking the Police Department apart." "Minneapolis is not the only city asking the question. Across the country, calls to defund, downsize or abolish police departments are gaining new traction"

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Apple Face Shield

Created by Valereee (talk). Self-nominated at 15:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: LittleT889 (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I came by to promote this, but the hook reads like a news item. Could you say anything more interesting about the subject? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yoninah, thanks. I'm not sure the hook still works, anyway, as another article has been created at Defund the police, which might have turned the boldlink into an easter egg. The article's had huge additions by multiple editors, I'll go give it a read and see what's there. —valereee (talk) 11:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I think the demand in question (abolishing the police) sounds radical enough that simply stating that it is being made is plenty hooky. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Vanamonde. But first we have this merge tag to deal with. Yoninah (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

nomination is still on hold since the merger discussion is ongoing. Flibirigit (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal has been closed as "no merger". Yoninah, can you proceed from here, since you were the one with the question on the hook? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: do you have anything else to say about the hook? If it runs without the image, does it still work? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yoninah, yeah, the article Defund the police was started, so this hook's bolded link is now an Easter egg. Maybe we just fail it?

valereee, Yoninah, I agree that the Easter egg is a problem, but is there any reason why the bold link cannot be changed to "abolishing the police" (we'd have to drop that photo):

ALT1: ... that abolishing the police is being demanded by protestors and proposed by legislators in multiple US cities?

I don't know whether the "demanded by protestors" or "proposed by legislators" facts are supported in the article for abolishing (as opposed to defunding), and I see the "History" section has a neutrality template on it, which would need to be addressed. valereee, if you think it's best, you can always withdraw the nomination; it doesn't need to be failed if you simply prefer not to continue. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The person who added that tag has not responded to Valereee's question in a while, so at this point just removing the tag would be justified. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the section, I would say that it's very much off-topic, and spends a lot of time on private police, which are not connected into the rest of the article in any significant way. Further, the opening felt like it lacked neutrality. I hadn't expected to say this, but I don't feel the tag removal can be justified. (Note: have struck the original hook; the Easter egg should not be used.) BlueMoonset (talk) 23:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should we just fail this? —valereee (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: It's up to you. Do you want to withdraw it? Yoninah (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nom. Thanks for the help and sorry for the work, all! :) —valereee (talk) 10:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023 edits

We've got an edit war brewing. I would love to see the IP editor justify their changes, which appear to be original research. For example: "In making this claim, abolitionists usually do not address the role of the police in situational intervention in active incidents of violence" is unsupported by any citation, and the later cited source just supports the direct quote from Ritchie was not made in the context of commentary on active incidents of violence. Pinging editors who reverted the content, @Mr.choppers and Dr vulpes; will drop a note at the IP's talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like WP:NPOV violation to me - I don't think it necessarily wrong to modify the tenor of the article and mention that many people do want there to be a police corps (but not a lawless one), but the IP edits appear rather biased to me. Best, Mr.choppers | ✎ 14:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I was monitoring recent changes and it was flagged for vandalism so after reviewing the edits I came to the same conclusion hence why I reverted those edits. After my edit was reverted I figured I would just give the whole thing some space since the editor seemed pretty upset. I'm pretty new to addressing vandalism and edit wars so I figured a more experienced editor would be better suited to handle this. I left a note on the ip editors talk page about their tone in the edit summaries. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 19:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IPs essentially have a free hand to edit war; WP:3RR is toothless since they will just use another IP and they lose pretty much nothing. You can report them but the time and effort are not commensurate with the potential benefits. Mr.choppers | ✎ 19:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted per this discussion and linked this section in my edit summary. Hopefully the IP joins us to talk it out. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]