This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Los Angeles Police Department article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 92 days |
Los Angeles Police Department was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for Los Angeles Police Department:
|
JohnFromPinckney has done some (very helpful!!) pruning, but this article's still deep in the weeds and the full contents listing should be easily visible; hard agree with Avatar317's note that more sections should be summarized with links to their respective full articles. Relatedly, I think (1) we need separate articles for the "Organization" and "Controversies and misconduct" sections, as the NYPD has with " Organization of the New York City Police Department" and " New York City Police Department corruption and misconduct". As an informal check, is there general consensus among those following talk?
If so, I can do this for the latter, but am wondering: (2) can someone else make the organization article? I genuinely don't understand the section well enough to do so myself, as it's unwieldy, unclear, filled with redundancies, and appears to mostly just be a list of office/bureau names that should be moved to a dedicated article; I think (3) a section for "services" would be a more relevant/helpful overview. I axed some of the repetitive material but didn't remove content (except what noted "now"); I did remove subheadings for short glosses, instead marking the name in bold and keeping any extant internal links.
The Controversies and misconduct section should give a summary overview including the department's most notable controversies, with the rest included in a separate article. As with "organization" I haven't removed any content for now, just merged several of the decade subheadings; I'll wait until I've heard from people here before making a new article. // Knifegames ( talk) 21:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Regarding
this edit: Thank you,
Crossroads, for rewording the copyvio. Could you point me to the source for "The Chief of Staff is responsible for coordinating the flow of information from command staff to ensure that the Chief is fully informed prior to making decisions, performing and coordinating special administrative audits and investigations, and assisting, advising, and submitting recommendations to the Chief of Police in matters involving employee relations"
and "The Professional Standards Bureau is the investigative arm of the Chief to identify and report corruption and employee behavior that discredits the LAPD or violates a department policy, procedure, or practice"
? Both cite an
organizational chart which doesn't include job descriptions. –
dlthewave
☎ 22:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Also, to address the elephant in the room, Snooganssnoogans, I feel that you're making an error when you see organisational information as a distraction from police misconduct. I don't know if you're familiar with Amnesty International/Human Rights Watch reports, but they typically include a chapter laying out chain of command of the groups involved. May seem mundane, but its an crucial part of establishing institutional responsibility. Explaining the structure of a police force is complimentary to detailing the scandals, not detrimental. --RaiderAspect (talk) 05:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
If any RS, including Amnesty and HRW cover what the "Chief of Staff" of the LAPD does in detail in relation to the numerous scandals of the LAPD, then Wikipedia can add similar details on that position.- That's a good point. I don't know what the appropriate trade-off here is. I agree that we shouldn't have excessive detail, and I generally always push for Independent Sources to show that some topic is not UNDUE, but I don't know how to balance that with PRIMARY in cases of Police Departments. --- Avatar317 (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Suspicions of motivation can be a two way street.–– Absolutely! But my suspicion is that people are letting their feelings take precedence over their investment in Wikipedia's core content policies, and it's because the extensive, unsourced administrative copy is very difficult to explain by other means.
My initial concerns were copyright violations and unsourced statements, but looking over the article today it's clear that the organizational structure is given far too much space, detail and prominence compared to its coverage in independent. This is surely unintentional, and a good first step would be to simply move the Controversies section closer to the top. It looks to me like someone essentially copied the LAPD-sourced organizational chart into prose and added unsourced, mundane descriptions such as "The Transit Services Bureau supervises the Transit Services Group, responsible for providing security and law enforcement to all of the bus and rail lines within the city of Los Angeles, and the Traffic Group, responsible for overseeing the four Geographical Traffic Divisions which handles traffic-related duties such as accident investigation and the issuing of citations/tickets." Keep in mind that this is sourced entirely to LAPD itself, raising NPOV concerns. Although a brief overview of the organizational structure and divisions would be appropriate, the current article goes into way too much detail in my opinion. – dlthewave ☎ 21:02, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
The usual practice is to name and order sections based on the precedent of similar articles.And what are these supposed sources that delve into details of misconduct before even basic information about the topic? Some (although I think only one has been mentioned so far) may mention it briefly early on, but we already do that by mentioning it in the lead. Crossroads -talk- 05:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
One possible solution is to (1) split off most of the controversies and misconduct stuff into a separate article as was proposed, then (2) integrate the rest into the History section. As it is, that doesn't mention really historically-prominent stuff like the Rodney King beating and ensuing riots. That's an odd telling of history. Certainly history of misconduct is a part of history, and done neutrally and without undue weight, I wouldn't see why that couldn't be high up as part of that section.
Question: Would it be reasonable to have a vote to see if parts of this page exceed WP:TOOMUCH and should be removed? In particular, I'm thinking about the list of bureaus and the entire rank and insignia section, including the terminology. -- Bob drobbs ( talk) 23:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Just as a note, for straightforward facts about things like rank structure there's nothing wrong with using primary sources. See WP:PSTS. Also, I would oppose removing it. No it's not the most notable of facts and one that's probably not discussed much in secondary sources, but it is a pretty basic item to include to allow reassess to use this article as a quick reference for facts. Articles are not always read as a full narrative, and using the TOC to find a specific summary of thinks like rank of bureaus is part of the purpose of an encyclopedia. Removing them would make the article significantly less useful as a reference tool and be a complete mistake. oknazevad ( talk) 12:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
In doing a cursory search about the LAPD, there are lots of sources discussing Covid within the LAPD, including 10 deaths, and lawsuits opposing the vaccinations mandate.
It seems this might be worth adding at least a couple of sentences about.
Thoughts on inclusion? If so, where should it go?
-- Bob drobbs ( talk) 18:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Just go to Scientology Celebrity Center. They act as security for them. Heck, one of their officers sang - in uniform - at one of their events! 2600:1002:A106:7060:B5DB:F8A1:CBA3:E30A ( talk) 23:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Please remember to tag redirects that you create per WP:REDCAT.
voorts ( talk/ contributions) 22:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Los Angeles Police Department article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 92 days |
Los Angeles Police Department was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for Los Angeles Police Department:
|
JohnFromPinckney has done some (very helpful!!) pruning, but this article's still deep in the weeds and the full contents listing should be easily visible; hard agree with Avatar317's note that more sections should be summarized with links to their respective full articles. Relatedly, I think (1) we need separate articles for the "Organization" and "Controversies and misconduct" sections, as the NYPD has with " Organization of the New York City Police Department" and " New York City Police Department corruption and misconduct". As an informal check, is there general consensus among those following talk?
If so, I can do this for the latter, but am wondering: (2) can someone else make the organization article? I genuinely don't understand the section well enough to do so myself, as it's unwieldy, unclear, filled with redundancies, and appears to mostly just be a list of office/bureau names that should be moved to a dedicated article; I think (3) a section for "services" would be a more relevant/helpful overview. I axed some of the repetitive material but didn't remove content (except what noted "now"); I did remove subheadings for short glosses, instead marking the name in bold and keeping any extant internal links.
The Controversies and misconduct section should give a summary overview including the department's most notable controversies, with the rest included in a separate article. As with "organization" I haven't removed any content for now, just merged several of the decade subheadings; I'll wait until I've heard from people here before making a new article. // Knifegames ( talk) 21:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Regarding
this edit: Thank you,
Crossroads, for rewording the copyvio. Could you point me to the source for "The Chief of Staff is responsible for coordinating the flow of information from command staff to ensure that the Chief is fully informed prior to making decisions, performing and coordinating special administrative audits and investigations, and assisting, advising, and submitting recommendations to the Chief of Police in matters involving employee relations"
and "The Professional Standards Bureau is the investigative arm of the Chief to identify and report corruption and employee behavior that discredits the LAPD or violates a department policy, procedure, or practice"
? Both cite an
organizational chart which doesn't include job descriptions. –
dlthewave
☎ 22:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Also, to address the elephant in the room, Snooganssnoogans, I feel that you're making an error when you see organisational information as a distraction from police misconduct. I don't know if you're familiar with Amnesty International/Human Rights Watch reports, but they typically include a chapter laying out chain of command of the groups involved. May seem mundane, but its an crucial part of establishing institutional responsibility. Explaining the structure of a police force is complimentary to detailing the scandals, not detrimental. --RaiderAspect (talk) 05:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
If any RS, including Amnesty and HRW cover what the "Chief of Staff" of the LAPD does in detail in relation to the numerous scandals of the LAPD, then Wikipedia can add similar details on that position.- That's a good point. I don't know what the appropriate trade-off here is. I agree that we shouldn't have excessive detail, and I generally always push for Independent Sources to show that some topic is not UNDUE, but I don't know how to balance that with PRIMARY in cases of Police Departments. --- Avatar317 (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Suspicions of motivation can be a two way street.–– Absolutely! But my suspicion is that people are letting their feelings take precedence over their investment in Wikipedia's core content policies, and it's because the extensive, unsourced administrative copy is very difficult to explain by other means.
My initial concerns were copyright violations and unsourced statements, but looking over the article today it's clear that the organizational structure is given far too much space, detail and prominence compared to its coverage in independent. This is surely unintentional, and a good first step would be to simply move the Controversies section closer to the top. It looks to me like someone essentially copied the LAPD-sourced organizational chart into prose and added unsourced, mundane descriptions such as "The Transit Services Bureau supervises the Transit Services Group, responsible for providing security and law enforcement to all of the bus and rail lines within the city of Los Angeles, and the Traffic Group, responsible for overseeing the four Geographical Traffic Divisions which handles traffic-related duties such as accident investigation and the issuing of citations/tickets." Keep in mind that this is sourced entirely to LAPD itself, raising NPOV concerns. Although a brief overview of the organizational structure and divisions would be appropriate, the current article goes into way too much detail in my opinion. – dlthewave ☎ 21:02, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
The usual practice is to name and order sections based on the precedent of similar articles.And what are these supposed sources that delve into details of misconduct before even basic information about the topic? Some (although I think only one has been mentioned so far) may mention it briefly early on, but we already do that by mentioning it in the lead. Crossroads -talk- 05:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
One possible solution is to (1) split off most of the controversies and misconduct stuff into a separate article as was proposed, then (2) integrate the rest into the History section. As it is, that doesn't mention really historically-prominent stuff like the Rodney King beating and ensuing riots. That's an odd telling of history. Certainly history of misconduct is a part of history, and done neutrally and without undue weight, I wouldn't see why that couldn't be high up as part of that section.
Question: Would it be reasonable to have a vote to see if parts of this page exceed WP:TOOMUCH and should be removed? In particular, I'm thinking about the list of bureaus and the entire rank and insignia section, including the terminology. -- Bob drobbs ( talk) 23:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Just as a note, for straightforward facts about things like rank structure there's nothing wrong with using primary sources. See WP:PSTS. Also, I would oppose removing it. No it's not the most notable of facts and one that's probably not discussed much in secondary sources, but it is a pretty basic item to include to allow reassess to use this article as a quick reference for facts. Articles are not always read as a full narrative, and using the TOC to find a specific summary of thinks like rank of bureaus is part of the purpose of an encyclopedia. Removing them would make the article significantly less useful as a reference tool and be a complete mistake. oknazevad ( talk) 12:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
In doing a cursory search about the LAPD, there are lots of sources discussing Covid within the LAPD, including 10 deaths, and lawsuits opposing the vaccinations mandate.
It seems this might be worth adding at least a couple of sentences about.
Thoughts on inclusion? If so, where should it go?
-- Bob drobbs ( talk) 18:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Just go to Scientology Celebrity Center. They act as security for them. Heck, one of their officers sang - in uniform - at one of their events! 2600:1002:A106:7060:B5DB:F8A1:CBA3:E30A ( talk) 23:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Please remember to tag redirects that you create per WP:REDCAT.
voorts ( talk/ contributions) 22:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)