Talk:Supreme Court Police

Authorizing legislation?

What portion of US law authorizes the Supreme Court police force? What are the other rules or policies that control them? NehpestTheFirst (talk) 02:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

As a courtesy to other contributors, could we discuss complicated or controversial issues on the talk page, not in our edit summaries...

An anonymous IP contributor reverted my good faith contribution.

Their edit summary was "Reverting undue focus on an unrelated event. This isn't a newspaper."

I am afraid their edit summary shows the contributor made their revision without even bothering to read my contribution. I provided a reference to previously unreferenced parts of the article, and I expanded on the activities of the Police. The anonymous contributor removed the paragraph I added on the Police's activity -- presumably what they meant with the "undue" assertion -- but they also removed the reference itself, and the other place the reference was used, documenting the branches of the Police.

Frankly the failure to distinguish between the parts of the addition they were concerned with, and the provison of a reference to an unreferenced part of the article, make this an irresponsible edit, "throwing out the baby with the bathwater".

In addition, edit summaries should not be relied upon to explain complicated or controversial edits. The practice of simply reverting contributions that are not obvious mistakes, solely with an edit summary, is the most common trigger to edit warring.

For what it is worth I am being wikistalked by a very persistent vandal, who was indefinitely blocked a year and a half ago, who continues to wikistalk me using anonymous IP contributions. I am afraid this edit may be another instance of this wikistalking, and I strongly encourage the anonymous IP contributor to create a named wiki-ID, if they are not my wikistalker. Geo Swan (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

You are trying to add a non-important event to this article to add weight to your point of view. This isn't a newspaper, not event single event needs to be accounted for on here. 142.51.236.62 (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't see that we need to discuss the Trump protests in here, but the gist of that sentence is to advise about currently employed staff, and that does seem to be relevant. I think the section around justices asking for protection needs expanding/clarifying - at the moment it does feel like it's just throwing news at you, but again I think the edits could be valuable if phrased the right way. Darren-M (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• 142.51.236.62 Bzzzt! Hypocrisy alert! Your edit summary says "WP:BRD states you need to discuss before reverting" So, why didn't YOU discuss your concerns, before you reverted me?
• Your first reckless reversion was to my entire contribution, including the new, excellent reference I added, and to passages I added that you had no objection to. Reckless reversions like that are indistinguishable from vandalism, and no one has to discuss reverting vandalism. Hold the presses. Your second reversion was not selective, but also to my entire contribution, including those portions you didn't state an objection to. In other words, indistinguishable from vandalism.
• This article remains relatively short. It would be appropriate to expand it, and include similar size passages for every incident where the Supreme Court Police is covered by reliable sources. Geo Swan (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • BRD REQUIRES you to seek consensus instead of reverting. It does not mean revert then bash another editor. The arrest of 5 people is NOT a notable incident unless there was something unique or irregular about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.255.23 (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

WRT to claim "found in the news"...

The Anonymous contributor who made two disruptive excisions to this article subsequently claimed that, after reverting their apparent vandalism, I was "trying to add small, non-related incidents found in the news", well, in this edit (1) I added a referenced coverage of when the unit was first authorized to carry firearms (1982); and added referenced coverage of a recruits starting pay ($60,000 / year). Claiming that is "non-related" shows either incompetence or bad faith.

Similarly, in this edit I started a referenced section on the officer's duties. Good faith contributors can differ on the best way to phrase this new information, to organize this new information. But it shows either bad faith or incompetence to claim the material is unrelated to the article's topic.

In this edit I added coverage to an incident where two justices decided to bring to the Chief of the unit that officers had shown inappropriate racism in threatening to arrest an Arab-American lawyer for behavior they allowed from white lawyers. Again, this is not "non-related".

Anon incorrectly said these edits used references "found in the news". Lots of material we add to articles could be characterized as "found in the news". These three, however are referenced to books and articles in law journals, ie. not "found in the news". Geo Swan (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The arrest of 5 protesters is far from a notable incident, in fact this would be a common element of their job. Every single reference to the subject in the mundane news does not need to be recorded here. Wikipedia isn't a news paper it is an encyclopedia. 129.100.255.23 (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

IMHO when the SCOTUS police arrest people, this is very significant. Here we have police who do executive acts, but not in the executive dept like the US Marshals are. Their process of arrest is also interesting. Do they have their own jail? (PeacePeace (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC))

Deleted trivial alleged incident of alleged racial profiling at the SCOTUS

The Section is on Notable Incidents. But the alleged incident (which seems based on a judgmental observation) is not notable. Also, the citation used to support the first half of the story, does not support the claim. Citation sites pp. 1-2 of some paper, but pp. 1-2 do not mention alleged incident nor the alleged interpretation of something as racial profiling. Something allegedly happened, and some "judgmental person who can see into a man's inner motives" claims it was racial profiling. There is no citation to support the claim. Pp. 1-2 don't mention it. The 2nd half of the story has not citation & can be deleted for lack of reliable source (none given). Thus I deleted this unnotable incident from the article. (PeacePeace (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC))

Additions possibly needed on SCOTUS jail & expansion of police force

Does anyone know if the SCOTUS building has a jail in it? Since these police are in charge of security, I am thinking that they probably have a jail in the building, a holding cell or something like that. But I have not been able to find proof of that yet. Article indicates that police were hired for the Kavanaugh demonstrations. Does that mean the SCOTUS police temporarily expanded to 300 men? Is there any limit as to the expansion of this police force? (PeacePeace (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC))

After checking the cited source, I found it had nothing to do with Kavanaugh nor with hiring police for Kavanaugh demonstrations, nor did the source say anything about SCOTUS police involved in containing Kavanaugh demonstrations. So the idea of 300 police is apparently wrong. This part of the article has to go. (PeacePeace (talk) 03:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC))

Very Misleading section of article is to be changed

Article said: "In October 2018, when the Police were responding to protests over President Donald Trump's appointment of Brett Kavanaugh to the Court, Security Today reported that the force employed 125 officers."

This statement is very misleading suggesting that the SCOTUS Police responded to protesters in the Kavanaugh matter & that they hired 125 new officers for the protests. The source given says nothing at all about Kavanaugh nor hiring police for the protests. The source says nothing about the protests nor that the SCOTUS police were involved controlling the protests. Thus this Kavanaugh insertion needs deleting. The source says nothing about Kavanaugh. (PeacePeace (talk) 03:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC))

• Sorry, but may I suggest you misread the passage in question? You seem to think the passage implies the Force hired 125 brand new officers, to cope with the anti-Kavanaugh protesters? How did you get that idea? Geo Swan (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

145 policemen are numbered in the side panel; this should be dated & sourced

Any such listing of how many police the SCOTUS police force has needs to be dated, as it is likely to be wrong when they hire more police. Thus I recommend that a date and source be given, like "145 policemen as of Jan 1, 2020" with a citation to footnote. (PeacePeace (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC))

Informationectomies

1. In this edit PeacePeace excised a paragraph about the incident when a former justice and a sitting justice addressed a concern the Police had racially profiles an Arab-American lawyer to the Chief of the Force, with the edit summary "Deleted alleged notable incident for not being notable & becs the citation to pp 1-2 of the source say nothing about the alleged indicident"

   Mauro, the author I cited, devoted two pages of his paper to a discussion of this incident. I accept at face value you looked at the reference, and didn't find it. Nevertheless, its there. Be advised pdf documents frequently have a mis-match between the nominal page numbers and the page numbers within the pdf. Maybe that's why you didn't find it.

   As to whether the incident it notable -- are you disputing whether a properly documented incident, where a Justice described formally confronting the Chief should be considered notable? If so, care to explain why? Geo Swan (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)