Talk:Rough ride (police brutality)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rough ride (police brutality) 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

Police Practice?

(This discussion began while article title was "Rough ride (police practice)", which may no longer apply) --do ncr am 01:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The title is misleading. I don't know of any police manual that says this is OK. A Rough ride not police practice... it is police malpractice. The distinction is important as calling it a practice suggests that it is widespread and accepted neither of which is supported by the sources.

It seems like this article was created in response to the Freddie Gray incident. I would strongly suggest merging this article into Police Brutality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:B:BB80:80D:9819:EA74:C916:18F0 (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC) The edit history shows that the two arguably independent preceding 'graphs are part of the same contribution, and the sign-bot entry applies equally to both.--Jerzy•t 23:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute that the word "practice" implies anything about frequency or level of acceptance. As to the suggested merge, this is clearly a distinct, well-defined topic, with sufficient content to stand alone. The police brutality article is already 36 kB, and none of the criteria of WP:MERGEREASON apply. —Swpb^talk 16:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The neutrality i mentioned in a deeper subsection has eroded a tad. I still don't see "practice" as being as problematic as 2601 supposes, nor imagine PoV intent, but do admit that "police practice" at best leaves room for misunderstanding (in the direction of "accepted ..." or "established procedure"), and while it's hard to imagine that every practitioner has independently invented the behavior, there's no way short of "... a new edition / of the Spanish Inquisition" to verify any of the constructions, in the direction of being normative, that could be put on "practice". (I'm not sure even 2601 was arguing for substituting "malpractice". And IMO, it's not our job to try to estimate now whether a year or 5 from now, the distinction we usually see made between this and other Police brutality will be like or unlike the distinction we generally see between The Holocaust and Second Boer War#Concentration camps (1900–1902).) I do think that both the choice of "procedure" and the request for a change lie well within AGF, and that Rdr's are cheap. So if no better candidate is quickly offered, i will propose or support a rename to Rough ride (offence by police), and argue that "offence" is less likely to be misconstrued.
--Jerzy•t 01:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going that way (and for the record, I still see "practice" as acceptably neutral), I'd prefer Rough ride (police offense); it's shorter, and the U.S.-centric nature of the topic (at least as it's known so far) argues for American spelling. —Swpb^talk 16:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the category the page is currently in, would "Rough ride (police brutality)" be an acceptible title? --2001:388:608C:6902:1452:6F34:D71E:CCB (talk) 03:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no qualms with that. —Swpb^talk 12:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just semi-boldly moved/renamed the article from "Rough ride (police practice)" to "Rough ride (police brutality)" as I agree with the thrust of discussion here, and I had arrived here at the Talk page troubled by the "practice" term in much the same ways as already described ("practice" fails to identify the action as "bad", it makes implication about how widespread is the action, it makes implication about a degree of acceptance that is not justified). Thank you, to Jerzy, Swpb, and one or two anonymous editors for your thoughtful comments here. And, to Swpb especially for having started and developed this timely and educational article in an encyclopedic way. --do ncr am 01:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —Swpb^talk 12:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, 2001 / 2601, and welcome; i left you another message at the talk page associated with one of your [quasi-?]IP addresses, mostly about how you might want to consider creating a WP account. IFAIK there's no objection to your using what looks to me like an anonymized/encrypted IP account as your identity, but it'll probably work better for you if you create an account to facilitate communications like these: it appears no one will know how to communicate with you other than via the last talk page you edited, since apparently your "return address" changes every time you log off. If you need the kind of security that the long quasi-IPs presumably provide you, asking for e.g. Innocent bystander or YA 'nonymous user as your WP account-name should meet the same privacy needs while still providing more stable communication channel from others to you. Write me at the foot of my talk page if you need light-duty tech help. (Or a referral to heavy-duty!)
--Jerzy•t 03:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've recv'd at User talk:Jerzy#Re: 661198197 a message apparently in response to my preceding 7 May 2015 contrib on this talk-page section, and have made a reply to it in that same user-talk section.
--Jerzy•t 07:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"By", not "of"

My edit to the accompanying article is intended to be neutral on the so-far (two days) abortive question of whether using "practice" is neutral PoV (tho i'm so far not offended by the absence of the word "alleged" from the lead, and i think using "alleged" in the title would be ridiculous). My contention is simply that the lead sent is inane, i failing to be clear about the use of the term implying that intent to do harm is no less hypothetical than the term's applicability: if you think the term "rough ride" ever applies, whether to a specific case or because of too many cases for it be plausible that all of them are innocent, then you must believe the erratic driving is purposeful, in at least that case or in some of that body of cases, respectively.
--Jerzy•t 23:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My use of the passive voice was not intended to imply that the action is anything less than fully intentional, but I see no problem with the new language. My personal bias tends much more strongly toward the victims than the police, and I may have subconsciously overcompensated for that.—Swpb^talk 16:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International Occurrence

Here is an occurrence in Spain that should be added to the article. Refered to in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriol_Junqueras#Imprisonment Original article: https://www.elnacional.cat/en/news/catalan-ministers-lawyer-prison_209121_102.html 50.64.112.36 (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've added it. I took off the {{globalize}} tag you added, because it looks (so far) like "rough rides" really are predominantly a US phenomenon. Of course, if there are other international incidents or discussion of the topic, they should be added, but for now, it looks like something that mainly happens in the US. —swpb^{T go beyond} 15:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Freddie Gray timeline

@Swpb: I removed the timeline image because it's not relevant to this specific article. A detailed map showing the timeline of his arrest is appropriate for his own page, but is off topic for the subject of this article. Opencooper (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]