This article was nominated for deletion on 5 October 2015. The result of the discussion was Snow Keep. |
Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article seems to have an anti-LAPD slant to it. FunkyChicken! 04:53, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
How can this be non-NPOV? It doesn't provide enough information to even get close to having an opinon. It's a stub.
I put a NPOV flAG ON THIS ARTICLE BECAUSR OF THE RACIAL DISCIMINATION CLAIM MADE ABOUT OPPERATION HAMMER. ONLY WARRANT SUSPECTS WERE ARRESTED, THEREFORE RACIAL PROFILING COULD NOT HAVE OCCURED. ONLY PEOPLE WITH OPEN WARRANTS WERE ARRESTED.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.193.168 ( talk • contribs) 13:04, November 6, 2006 (UTC)
I grew up in Los Angeles, and my comments concerning the LAPD are, well, let us say that I am able to contain my enthusiasm concerning their operations. Nonetheless, the gamg problem in Los Angeles is well out of control, and as a response to that problem putting in a CRASH was not out of line. How about we do this: We break this article into two pieces. The first piece concerns the CRASH units themselves, purpose, authority to operate, objectives, etc. In this piece we simply mention that there have been problems in execution. The second piece concerns the Rampart scandal itself. Here, we can discuss Parks and his attempts to quash investigation of the scandal, we can discuss Perez, we can discuss the planting of evidence, etc., etc., etc. Comments? (10:16, 25 September 2005 IP 24.64.112.236)
This article is bare bones. I don't know what you NPOV guys are complaining about... there's nothing here to even criticize. More of this article needs to be written before anybody can posit an opinion.
With that said, reading this article tells me pretty much nothing, which is why I bothered to leave a comment in the first place. So one corrupt cop was arrested for stealing coccaine? This constitutes an entire scandal involving 70 officers? Details, please. Lantoka 05:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
That third paragraph in the introduction is rather confusing - might need to be reworded a bit. -William 10/29/06 15:09 CST
Both CRASH and LAPD Rampart Division have a section on the Rampart Scandal. This is redundant. The Rampart Scandal is notable enough to have its own article, linking to CRASH and LAPD Rampart Division. I'll create it. Jonathan Stokes 06:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Just my input, another eye if you care for it. And this was my impression, even, before reading this talk page thread. When I got here, I was utterly surprised that the disagreement was over the article being slanted against the police. I walked away with the opposite reaction. For example,
this graf:
On February 26, 1998, two CRASH officers from Rampart were stripped of their jobs when allegations arose of a cover-up of the beating and asphyxiation of an 18th Street gang member. Officer Brian Hewitt was accused of choking the gang member in an interview room when the latter refused to provide evidence of gang activities. Hewitt, along with officers Ethan Cohan and Daniel Lujan, did not report this incident. When the gang member reported his beating at a hospital, evidence, including blood in the interview room, implicated the three officers. Before a Board of Rights council, only Lujan was acquitted of his role.
struck me immediately as bending over backward to avoid saying what a reader must almost work to infer—that Cohan and Hewitt were guilty of attempted murder (assuming that was the charge). That two of these men so "implicated" were convicted. Mostly, in all of its passive phrasing and positioning, it manages to squirm away from the taint that this incident implies. Being a bit tongue-in-cheek, I'd say that the hyper-careful sentence structure essentially reads as if the police were editing the article to deflect culpability!
Ultimately, while the wording toes the bridge between How to best use language to maintain a neutral tone and Arranging language to give an impression other than the facts, this editor's opinion (which, admittedly, has its roots in the printed world, and is green in the Wiki-sphere) is that at least this graf arrives squarely at Not untrue, yet rings false in its apparent effort to avoid straightforward language.
—An observer passing through, Huicholo 19:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
In some areas of Wikipedia, there seems to be an attempt to produce information with truth and objectivity as the basis. When it comes to social issues all bets are off for truth, accuracy, and objectivity. In reality, this is just a symptom of today's "reality" mentality. Having said this, let me give a few observations from one who lived the subject and from one who long ago left to view objectivity on a historical international level.
If this is an article about CRASH, then it should speak to CRASH. If this is an articele about the CRASH of the Los Angeles Police Department then it should speak to that.
Maybe a good place to start is the beginning of CRASH and not the beginning of aberrant CRASH.
Historical
In 1973, in 77th Street Division of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), street gangs were quickly becoming a problem. Deputy Chief Lou Sporrer, commanding officer of South Bureau,responsible for 77th Street Division operations,and ultimately responsible to Chief of Police Edward M. Davis, created a unit of uniformed officers and a plain clothes intelligence section, combined to be identified as 77th Street Division TRASH.
TRASH was an acronym for Total Resources Against Street Hoodlums; with the idea that LAPD didn't want to glamorize gangs. Out-of-town activists began efforts to abolish the TRASH unit stating the name itself hurt the image of these youth. Sporrer agreed to a name change and the "T" became a "C" and TRASH became CRASH. This was not a city-wide entity and Daryl Gates did not create it.
Also, in 1979 there were not 18 Area CRASH units...
Wikipedia has a page for LAPD Police Chief Edward M. Davis. Davis was Chief from 1969 to 1978. Paragraph four on the Davis page states Davis created CRASH and it was sequentially in the early '70s. This page is blatantly anti-LAPD with allegations either uncited, or quoted support from a German sex site...that's great support for Wikipedia assertion. Not a peep appears to oppose the several ridiculous assertions of police misconduct.
If this is truly a reporting on the Los Angeles Police Department Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums program, then the "motto" of intimidating is not an LAPD motto and should be removed, as it is added by some poster DodgerBlue777 who aparently picked it up from the likes of PBS and some officers. They allegedly heard it was coined by some felon LAPD officers, whose hiring circumstances have never been told.
I could go on, but it appears truth and quality take a back seat to video game garbage listed by the likes of DodgerBlue 777. If anyone is seriously considering accuracy, Wikipedia has my email for supervisor use, as I doubt I will get back this way for a while.
I left the motto joke for someone else to deal with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asvrc100 ( talk • contribs) 20:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
The article states that CRASH was founded by Chief Daryl Gates in 1977. However, on Daryl Gates' Wikipedia article, it states he became the LAPD chief in 1978. Illegitimate Barrister ( talk) 13:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 5 October 2015. The result of the discussion was Snow Keep. |
Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article seems to have an anti-LAPD slant to it. FunkyChicken! 04:53, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
How can this be non-NPOV? It doesn't provide enough information to even get close to having an opinon. It's a stub.
I put a NPOV flAG ON THIS ARTICLE BECAUSR OF THE RACIAL DISCIMINATION CLAIM MADE ABOUT OPPERATION HAMMER. ONLY WARRANT SUSPECTS WERE ARRESTED, THEREFORE RACIAL PROFILING COULD NOT HAVE OCCURED. ONLY PEOPLE WITH OPEN WARRANTS WERE ARRESTED.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.193.168 ( talk • contribs) 13:04, November 6, 2006 (UTC)
I grew up in Los Angeles, and my comments concerning the LAPD are, well, let us say that I am able to contain my enthusiasm concerning their operations. Nonetheless, the gamg problem in Los Angeles is well out of control, and as a response to that problem putting in a CRASH was not out of line. How about we do this: We break this article into two pieces. The first piece concerns the CRASH units themselves, purpose, authority to operate, objectives, etc. In this piece we simply mention that there have been problems in execution. The second piece concerns the Rampart scandal itself. Here, we can discuss Parks and his attempts to quash investigation of the scandal, we can discuss Perez, we can discuss the planting of evidence, etc., etc., etc. Comments? (10:16, 25 September 2005 IP 24.64.112.236)
This article is bare bones. I don't know what you NPOV guys are complaining about... there's nothing here to even criticize. More of this article needs to be written before anybody can posit an opinion.
With that said, reading this article tells me pretty much nothing, which is why I bothered to leave a comment in the first place. So one corrupt cop was arrested for stealing coccaine? This constitutes an entire scandal involving 70 officers? Details, please. Lantoka 05:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
That third paragraph in the introduction is rather confusing - might need to be reworded a bit. -William 10/29/06 15:09 CST
Both CRASH and LAPD Rampart Division have a section on the Rampart Scandal. This is redundant. The Rampart Scandal is notable enough to have its own article, linking to CRASH and LAPD Rampart Division. I'll create it. Jonathan Stokes 06:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Just my input, another eye if you care for it. And this was my impression, even, before reading this talk page thread. When I got here, I was utterly surprised that the disagreement was over the article being slanted against the police. I walked away with the opposite reaction. For example,
this graf:
On February 26, 1998, two CRASH officers from Rampart were stripped of their jobs when allegations arose of a cover-up of the beating and asphyxiation of an 18th Street gang member. Officer Brian Hewitt was accused of choking the gang member in an interview room when the latter refused to provide evidence of gang activities. Hewitt, along with officers Ethan Cohan and Daniel Lujan, did not report this incident. When the gang member reported his beating at a hospital, evidence, including blood in the interview room, implicated the three officers. Before a Board of Rights council, only Lujan was acquitted of his role.
struck me immediately as bending over backward to avoid saying what a reader must almost work to infer—that Cohan and Hewitt were guilty of attempted murder (assuming that was the charge). That two of these men so "implicated" were convicted. Mostly, in all of its passive phrasing and positioning, it manages to squirm away from the taint that this incident implies. Being a bit tongue-in-cheek, I'd say that the hyper-careful sentence structure essentially reads as if the police were editing the article to deflect culpability!
Ultimately, while the wording toes the bridge between How to best use language to maintain a neutral tone and Arranging language to give an impression other than the facts, this editor's opinion (which, admittedly, has its roots in the printed world, and is green in the Wiki-sphere) is that at least this graf arrives squarely at Not untrue, yet rings false in its apparent effort to avoid straightforward language.
—An observer passing through, Huicholo 19:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
In some areas of Wikipedia, there seems to be an attempt to produce information with truth and objectivity as the basis. When it comes to social issues all bets are off for truth, accuracy, and objectivity. In reality, this is just a symptom of today's "reality" mentality. Having said this, let me give a few observations from one who lived the subject and from one who long ago left to view objectivity on a historical international level.
If this is an article about CRASH, then it should speak to CRASH. If this is an articele about the CRASH of the Los Angeles Police Department then it should speak to that.
Maybe a good place to start is the beginning of CRASH and not the beginning of aberrant CRASH.
Historical
In 1973, in 77th Street Division of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), street gangs were quickly becoming a problem. Deputy Chief Lou Sporrer, commanding officer of South Bureau,responsible for 77th Street Division operations,and ultimately responsible to Chief of Police Edward M. Davis, created a unit of uniformed officers and a plain clothes intelligence section, combined to be identified as 77th Street Division TRASH.
TRASH was an acronym for Total Resources Against Street Hoodlums; with the idea that LAPD didn't want to glamorize gangs. Out-of-town activists began efforts to abolish the TRASH unit stating the name itself hurt the image of these youth. Sporrer agreed to a name change and the "T" became a "C" and TRASH became CRASH. This was not a city-wide entity and Daryl Gates did not create it.
Also, in 1979 there were not 18 Area CRASH units...
Wikipedia has a page for LAPD Police Chief Edward M. Davis. Davis was Chief from 1969 to 1978. Paragraph four on the Davis page states Davis created CRASH and it was sequentially in the early '70s. This page is blatantly anti-LAPD with allegations either uncited, or quoted support from a German sex site...that's great support for Wikipedia assertion. Not a peep appears to oppose the several ridiculous assertions of police misconduct.
If this is truly a reporting on the Los Angeles Police Department Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums program, then the "motto" of intimidating is not an LAPD motto and should be removed, as it is added by some poster DodgerBlue777 who aparently picked it up from the likes of PBS and some officers. They allegedly heard it was coined by some felon LAPD officers, whose hiring circumstances have never been told.
I could go on, but it appears truth and quality take a back seat to video game garbage listed by the likes of DodgerBlue 777. If anyone is seriously considering accuracy, Wikipedia has my email for supervisor use, as I doubt I will get back this way for a while.
I left the motto joke for someone else to deal with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asvrc100 ( talk • contribs) 20:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
The article states that CRASH was founded by Chief Daryl Gates in 1977. However, on Daryl Gates' Wikipedia article, it states he became the LAPD chief in 1978. Illegitimate Barrister ( talk) 13:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)