![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Something needs to be done about the list of "firsts" which looks like propaganda directly from a recruiting brochure. Examples:
"the first proactive Police Department." The definintion of "proactive police department" is so open to dispute as to be meaningless. This could arguably apply to any organization from the Bow Street Runners on, depending on what "proactive" meant at the time.
"the first law enforcement agency to outlaw gambling and prostitution." Law enforcement agencies don't outlaw anything - they enforce laws. Even so, there have been anti-gambling laws and "morals" laws in this country since the Mayflower Landing.
"most modern police tactics and tools were first tested or designed by the LAPD." Also so open to dispute it is meaningless. Is foot patrol a "modern police tool"? It is certainly emphasized in modern community policing doctrines, but foot patrols date back to the beginnings of policing.
"they have been called the best dressed police department." Also meaningless. Who called them that? Why is their uniform dress unique? And what possible policing significance does it have?
I though about simple deleting these, but I thought some-one more familiar with LAPD history could better revise the list to contribute to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.180.230 ( talk • contribs)
Categories seem redundant. Merge the two? - Roy Laurie
These lists could go on forever.
Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 03:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Dep. Garcia 22:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I would like to move the list of police chiefs to a separate page. What does everybody think?
Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 06:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Currently, the only 'discussion' is going on in the edit summaries. If this Edit war continues, it is likely that the article will be temporarily protected. To prevent that, the editors involved in the dispute should discuss things here on the talk page.
When I looked at the links that were recently readded, I noticed that at least one of them absolutely should not be in the article because it is about the UCLA police department and not the LAPD. Another of the links [1] is a VERY uninformative blog entry with some confusing pictures. It's worthless as a link for this article. The rest of them currently do not support any text in the article and therefore are also useless at references.
If you want something in the article about the very long history of police brutality from the LAPD, WRITE IT UP. Don't just dump a rather random bunch of links into the article that won't help the reader of this encyclopedia article. Blank Verse 13:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
As the article is currently written, it is in need of a good weed whacking. For example, there is much in the article that basically repeats what is on the LAPD website, such as the "LAPD organization" section, as well as the info on "ranks" in the force composition section. That information should be deleted. (see WP:NOT for the reasons.)
There are other large sections that I think should be offloaded to their own 'daughter' articles, such as the Radio section moved to Radio use by the Los Angeles Police Department. The large " LAPD in the media" should also get its own article, as well as moving "LAPD Chiefs of Police" to List of Los Angeles Police Department Chiefs of Police.
The huge History section needs to be divided into subsection divided by eras (mostly by Police Chiefs), and the gang enforcement description should be moved to its own section.
Does anyone else have any suggestions, or any comments on my suggestions. Blank Verse 13:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing in the article on any of the LAPD's
What else is the article missing? Blank Verse 14:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
No Tact in Comments
Don't forget about the ranking system. I clicked on a link to find out how the LAPD ranking system worked and I couldn't find it. That's another thing to be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drakonis ( talk • contribs) 15:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I do not belive that that article should be merged with this one. Those are two separate entities, one consisting of civilians tasked with overseeing and regulating the police department, the other consisting of uniformed officers tasked with regulating the citizens of the City of Los Angeles. I don't see how the two mix. Lasdlt 19:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree the commision is a political branch of the mayors office, appointed by the mayor to oversee the PD. They are usually attorneys, are a citizen oversight board. They also get changed out quite often.
This entire section needs to be rewritten. It's full of inaccuracies, racist comments, and just a lot of general stupidity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkannis ( talk • contribs) 11:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunatly, this article does have a lot of hidden vandalism, inaccuracies, racism, and just general misinformation, anyone who knows about this subject can help vastly in improving and fixing this article. Janus8463 00:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of which, is there any decent citation for the claim that the population of the Mission Division is "mostly" illegal immigrants? Mostly Latino, to be sure, but I don't buy that claim about their immigration status. Alanmjohnson ( talk) 23:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
This section seems to be just in TV and films. What about Music? I can think of a LOT of songs about the LAPD. 82.36.125.13 19:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm inclined to nominate this for deletion, but would like to hear from others who may know something about the subject. Any chance this could become a solid article, or should it be nuked? — xDanielx T/ C\ R 22:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
lets be honest, LAPD is most notable for being an relentlessly ill-behaved police force. i'm not even from LA, i'm from the east coast, and everybody knows that the LAPD is notorious. call that my POV, but the incidents speak for themselves. so it's fair to assume that many people are coming to this page to read about that sort of stuff. but the detail on the page is lacking. the way the scandals section is organized resembles a stub: perhaps we should include a brief explanation next to each link? plus, the controversies section is more than half made up of one incident; plus, needless to say, there's more controversies than the ones listed. 160.39.130.95 ( talk) 01:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Per Skyfox11's comments that got deleted, something is wrong somewhere when the start of the article claims "it is the fifth largest law enforcement agency in the United States (behind the New York City Police Department, Chicago Police Department, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the Federal Bureau of Investigation)" and the Los_Angeles_County_Sheriff's_Department article claims it the LASD is the "The LASD is...the fourth largest state or local law enforcement agency in the United States"
Can someone look into the facts and correct both articles as necessary? Mfield ( talk) 05:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll look into it and get back to you. Velcrochicken17 ( talk) 18:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
This review is transcluded from Talk:Los Angeles Police Department/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
This article does not meet the Good Article criteria and has therefore failed. Issues include the [citation needed] tags found throughout the article, and several more sections go unreferenced. Once this article meets the criteria found at WP:GA?, then please renominate it. Gary King ( talk) 02:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
The article in my opinion if very far from GA standarts. Some examples:
Since I do not think that the article can be improved during one week, I will fail it. Ruslik ( talk) 10:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
The Los Angeles Animal Cruelty Task Force (ACTF) is on the LAPD website, but can someone put it on the Wikipedia LAPD article? the info is available at http://www.lapdonline.org/actf. L.J. Tibbs ( talk) 13:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
That is all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.128.12 ( talk) 03:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
The "Crime by Officers" section should be at least moved to Section 9 "Controversy" under "Other Controversies". Crime by Officers SHOULD NOT be put under same section as Fallen Officers that is just disrespectful for those who gave their lives for the community. One bad apple does not make every other one just as bad, it should not be this way. I will temporary move the Crime By Officers section to Other Controversies for now and see if anyone want to discuss this small case of a bad apple. Obviously when you have this large of a department you are bound to find someone stepping away from the law instead of enforcing it. Should look into NYPD and see how they handle the article in regards to "Misconduct" and their list. One thing for sure putting it right under fallen officers is not the right thing to do. That is just rotten..... Neoking ( talk) 22:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the sectioning and editing tedder, the article looks much nicer now. Good call on putting fallen officers below LAPD Awards. Neoking ( talk) 23:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Why are there so few pictures of LAPD's cars and officers ? It's sad because the article is quiet good but not illustrated at all... Any one to make some pictures of the LAPD for Commons ? Best regards, Kevin Benoit [ Let's discuss! 11:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Recommend protecting this article in wake of numerous vandalism in wake of Dorner incident, especially the introductory sentence of this article 75.172.22.191 ( talk) 22:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Is this correct? Elsewhere it says Rasmussen was the wife of Lazarus's exboyfriend. 76.218.104.120 ( talk) 06:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Hooray for the bold deletion by Zackmann08! This article is much too long as it is. Paul, in Saudi ( talk) 06:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Is there any way that someone could mention that SIS now uses the Glock 30S pistol, that they actually helped to design? L.J. Tibbs ( talk) 02:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Los Angeles Police Department. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Los Angeles Police Department. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
What about the Black Dahlia murder scandal of January 1947? I think the LAPD cover-up has been confirmed. Valetude ( talk) 15:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Los Angeles Police Department. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://laist.com/2008/01/02/name_the_new_la.phpWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Los Angeles Police Department. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Los Angeles Police Department. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Recently,
FOX 52 removed flag of LAPD claiming that it redundant image (with seal of LAPD). I disagree as flag and seal are different things, I also shown that the flag can be found
here, and revert it back. But he is not accepting that claiming source for flag of LAPD coming from blog and cite
WP:BLOGS and photo cannot be accepted as source as per
WP:NOR.
However, if we look up the seal of LAPD, it also comes from the same "blog" as the flag of LAPD. So, based on his logic then seal of LAPD should also be removed. any thought about this? (
Ckfasdf (
talk)
08:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC))
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 02:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
The largest section of the article is about the racism, police brutality, and police corruption of the LAPD, which includes a recent period when the LAPD operated under a consent decree with the DOJ after a 2000 DOJ investigation concluded that there was rampant racism, police brutality, and police corruption within the LAPD. This [2] is what the lead looked like in August 2000. That version should be restored. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 14:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Should the lead note include 2-3 sentences that the LAPD has (1) a history of corruption, brutality and discriminatory policing, (2) a 2000 DOJ investigation found rampant racism, police brutality, and police corruption within the LAPD, and (3) the LAPD was subsequently placed under federal oversight from 2001 to 2013? Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 23:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
References
The consent decree was crucial because, for decades, study after study had documented abuses by LAPD officers.
The defendants in the Chicano cases complained bitterly about the courts discriminating against Mexicans. Yet on a day-to-day basis the Mexican community interacted much more regularly with law enforcement agencies. In East Los Angeles, these included primarily the Los Angeles police and sheriff's departments. With both agencies, brutality against East Los Angeles's residents was routine. ...
The LAPD was rife with both conscious and common sense racism. Purposeful racism almost certainly operated among the LAPD officers to a greater degree than among the Los Angeles Superior Court judges during the same period. Joseph Woods, a generally laudatory student of Los Angeles police reform, called the LAPD under Chief Parker [the longest-serving chief in LAPD history] 'a bastion of white supremacy.'
the department's history of abuse and corruption as a backdrop.
Never before in its history has the LAPD been subjected to outside monitoring of that type.
Declaring that the Los Angeles Police Department has reformed itself significantly after decades of corruption and brutality complaints, a U.S. judge on Friday ended a long-running period of federal oversight.
[The lead] should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies [emphasis added].
This was posted two months ago & has been 12-3 yes for two weeks, so I added one sentence to the lead: "The LAPD has been criticized for its history of police brutality, corruption, discriminatory policing, and human rights violations"; normally I'd go with more specificity, but wanted to err on the side of brevity given discussions of undue weight. I also added the lead too short template, because there's clear consensus that the lead needs to be expanded. // Knifegames ( talk) 15:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm not the only one who thinks the section listing off every division of the LAPD is also unnecessarily long, right? Specifically the patrol divisions under Office of Operations, where I think the short list (between the subsection text and "Operations—Central Bureau") is already enough; no one really cares about the Van Nuys Division's jurisdiction other than the LAPD mega-fans who, judging by the amount of content here compared to the pages for other police departments, appear to have written this entire article. The section also uses nothing but primary sources from the LAPD, but I'm not sure if that's an issue.
Just asking for input here before I get flagged for vandalism for removing the patrol division list. AdoTang ( talk) 16:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans, please do not rip out large amounts of text without getting consensus here first. How a law enforcement agency works is encyclopedic. It's not all brutality and corruption. Crossroads -talk- 23:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I would say that much of the "Resources" section info should be moved to the Los Angeles Police Department resources article, but right now the majority isn't reliable because the "firearms" section's primary sources do not provide the cited information––though I left some of the unsourced material in the interest of not axing everything. The three main sources are "Gun Nuts Media" and two LAPD pages, one to a list of "blocks of instruction" covered in firearms training and the second an equipment list; neither LAPD source provides any history, further description, or conditions of use. The list of what officers carry "now" was retrieved in 2014, and a quick search of the equipment page shows a number of those models are no longer included.
I updated the list of handguns with the 2021-listed models & left what presumably were the 2014 SWAT weapons. "Gun Nuts Media" doesn't seem like the most reliable source, but I left some of what that page *does* include, updating to reflect the source's degree of specificity (e.g., a note about "1987" is listed as being in "the 1980s" on GNM). // Knifegames ( talk) 22:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
A RfC just concluded where I asked "Should the lead note include 2-3 sentences that the LAPD has (1) a history of corruption, brutality and discriminatory policing, (2) a 2000 DOJ investigation found rampant racism, police brutality, and police corruption within the LAPD, and (3) the LAPD was subsequently placed under federal oversight from 2001 to 2013?" I did not ask whether the lead should say that LAPD "has been criticized" for its misconduct, which alters the well-documented misconduct in the department from an established fact to an attributed perspective. Should the lead attribute the misconduct as a critics POV or as an established fact? In other words, should this edit [3] be in the article? Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 00:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
There is a strong consensus to include a few sentences about controversies as part of a fully developed lead, based on these aspects being prominently and consistently covered in reliable sources....I was asked on my user talk if this RfC close endorses a specific wording of how the controversies are to be discussed in the lead. It does not. Most of the comments were not specific enough to find a consensus for a particular wording.This is exactly as I understand it. I don't see how your wording is any more direct than mine, other than not mentioning that critics point to that for some reason. This page seems to have a number of other watchers who can weigh in. Crossroads -talk- 01:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Something needs to be done about the list of "firsts" which looks like propaganda directly from a recruiting brochure. Examples:
"the first proactive Police Department." The definintion of "proactive police department" is so open to dispute as to be meaningless. This could arguably apply to any organization from the Bow Street Runners on, depending on what "proactive" meant at the time.
"the first law enforcement agency to outlaw gambling and prostitution." Law enforcement agencies don't outlaw anything - they enforce laws. Even so, there have been anti-gambling laws and "morals" laws in this country since the Mayflower Landing.
"most modern police tactics and tools were first tested or designed by the LAPD." Also so open to dispute it is meaningless. Is foot patrol a "modern police tool"? It is certainly emphasized in modern community policing doctrines, but foot patrols date back to the beginnings of policing.
"they have been called the best dressed police department." Also meaningless. Who called them that? Why is their uniform dress unique? And what possible policing significance does it have?
I though about simple deleting these, but I thought some-one more familiar with LAPD history could better revise the list to contribute to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.180.230 ( talk • contribs)
Categories seem redundant. Merge the two? - Roy Laurie
These lists could go on forever.
Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 03:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Dep. Garcia 22:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I would like to move the list of police chiefs to a separate page. What does everybody think?
Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 06:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Currently, the only 'discussion' is going on in the edit summaries. If this Edit war continues, it is likely that the article will be temporarily protected. To prevent that, the editors involved in the dispute should discuss things here on the talk page.
When I looked at the links that were recently readded, I noticed that at least one of them absolutely should not be in the article because it is about the UCLA police department and not the LAPD. Another of the links [1] is a VERY uninformative blog entry with some confusing pictures. It's worthless as a link for this article. The rest of them currently do not support any text in the article and therefore are also useless at references.
If you want something in the article about the very long history of police brutality from the LAPD, WRITE IT UP. Don't just dump a rather random bunch of links into the article that won't help the reader of this encyclopedia article. Blank Verse 13:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
As the article is currently written, it is in need of a good weed whacking. For example, there is much in the article that basically repeats what is on the LAPD website, such as the "LAPD organization" section, as well as the info on "ranks" in the force composition section. That information should be deleted. (see WP:NOT for the reasons.)
There are other large sections that I think should be offloaded to their own 'daughter' articles, such as the Radio section moved to Radio use by the Los Angeles Police Department. The large " LAPD in the media" should also get its own article, as well as moving "LAPD Chiefs of Police" to List of Los Angeles Police Department Chiefs of Police.
The huge History section needs to be divided into subsection divided by eras (mostly by Police Chiefs), and the gang enforcement description should be moved to its own section.
Does anyone else have any suggestions, or any comments on my suggestions. Blank Verse 13:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing in the article on any of the LAPD's
What else is the article missing? Blank Verse 14:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
No Tact in Comments
Don't forget about the ranking system. I clicked on a link to find out how the LAPD ranking system worked and I couldn't find it. That's another thing to be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drakonis ( talk • contribs) 15:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I do not belive that that article should be merged with this one. Those are two separate entities, one consisting of civilians tasked with overseeing and regulating the police department, the other consisting of uniformed officers tasked with regulating the citizens of the City of Los Angeles. I don't see how the two mix. Lasdlt 19:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree the commision is a political branch of the mayors office, appointed by the mayor to oversee the PD. They are usually attorneys, are a citizen oversight board. They also get changed out quite often.
This entire section needs to be rewritten. It's full of inaccuracies, racist comments, and just a lot of general stupidity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkannis ( talk • contribs) 11:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunatly, this article does have a lot of hidden vandalism, inaccuracies, racism, and just general misinformation, anyone who knows about this subject can help vastly in improving and fixing this article. Janus8463 00:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of which, is there any decent citation for the claim that the population of the Mission Division is "mostly" illegal immigrants? Mostly Latino, to be sure, but I don't buy that claim about their immigration status. Alanmjohnson ( talk) 23:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
This section seems to be just in TV and films. What about Music? I can think of a LOT of songs about the LAPD. 82.36.125.13 19:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm inclined to nominate this for deletion, but would like to hear from others who may know something about the subject. Any chance this could become a solid article, or should it be nuked? — xDanielx T/ C\ R 22:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
lets be honest, LAPD is most notable for being an relentlessly ill-behaved police force. i'm not even from LA, i'm from the east coast, and everybody knows that the LAPD is notorious. call that my POV, but the incidents speak for themselves. so it's fair to assume that many people are coming to this page to read about that sort of stuff. but the detail on the page is lacking. the way the scandals section is organized resembles a stub: perhaps we should include a brief explanation next to each link? plus, the controversies section is more than half made up of one incident; plus, needless to say, there's more controversies than the ones listed. 160.39.130.95 ( talk) 01:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Per Skyfox11's comments that got deleted, something is wrong somewhere when the start of the article claims "it is the fifth largest law enforcement agency in the United States (behind the New York City Police Department, Chicago Police Department, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the Federal Bureau of Investigation)" and the Los_Angeles_County_Sheriff's_Department article claims it the LASD is the "The LASD is...the fourth largest state or local law enforcement agency in the United States"
Can someone look into the facts and correct both articles as necessary? Mfield ( talk) 05:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll look into it and get back to you. Velcrochicken17 ( talk) 18:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
This review is transcluded from Talk:Los Angeles Police Department/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
This article does not meet the Good Article criteria and has therefore failed. Issues include the [citation needed] tags found throughout the article, and several more sections go unreferenced. Once this article meets the criteria found at WP:GA?, then please renominate it. Gary King ( talk) 02:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
The article in my opinion if very far from GA standarts. Some examples:
Since I do not think that the article can be improved during one week, I will fail it. Ruslik ( talk) 10:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
The Los Angeles Animal Cruelty Task Force (ACTF) is on the LAPD website, but can someone put it on the Wikipedia LAPD article? the info is available at http://www.lapdonline.org/actf. L.J. Tibbs ( talk) 13:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
That is all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.128.12 ( talk) 03:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
The "Crime by Officers" section should be at least moved to Section 9 "Controversy" under "Other Controversies". Crime by Officers SHOULD NOT be put under same section as Fallen Officers that is just disrespectful for those who gave their lives for the community. One bad apple does not make every other one just as bad, it should not be this way. I will temporary move the Crime By Officers section to Other Controversies for now and see if anyone want to discuss this small case of a bad apple. Obviously when you have this large of a department you are bound to find someone stepping away from the law instead of enforcing it. Should look into NYPD and see how they handle the article in regards to "Misconduct" and their list. One thing for sure putting it right under fallen officers is not the right thing to do. That is just rotten..... Neoking ( talk) 22:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the sectioning and editing tedder, the article looks much nicer now. Good call on putting fallen officers below LAPD Awards. Neoking ( talk) 23:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Why are there so few pictures of LAPD's cars and officers ? It's sad because the article is quiet good but not illustrated at all... Any one to make some pictures of the LAPD for Commons ? Best regards, Kevin Benoit [ Let's discuss! 11:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Recommend protecting this article in wake of numerous vandalism in wake of Dorner incident, especially the introductory sentence of this article 75.172.22.191 ( talk) 22:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Is this correct? Elsewhere it says Rasmussen was the wife of Lazarus's exboyfriend. 76.218.104.120 ( talk) 06:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Hooray for the bold deletion by Zackmann08! This article is much too long as it is. Paul, in Saudi ( talk) 06:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Is there any way that someone could mention that SIS now uses the Glock 30S pistol, that they actually helped to design? L.J. Tibbs ( talk) 02:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Los Angeles Police Department. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Los Angeles Police Department. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
What about the Black Dahlia murder scandal of January 1947? I think the LAPD cover-up has been confirmed. Valetude ( talk) 15:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Los Angeles Police Department. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://laist.com/2008/01/02/name_the_new_la.phpWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Los Angeles Police Department. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Los Angeles Police Department. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Recently,
FOX 52 removed flag of LAPD claiming that it redundant image (with seal of LAPD). I disagree as flag and seal are different things, I also shown that the flag can be found
here, and revert it back. But he is not accepting that claiming source for flag of LAPD coming from blog and cite
WP:BLOGS and photo cannot be accepted as source as per
WP:NOR.
However, if we look up the seal of LAPD, it also comes from the same "blog" as the flag of LAPD. So, based on his logic then seal of LAPD should also be removed. any thought about this? (
Ckfasdf (
talk)
08:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC))
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 02:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
The largest section of the article is about the racism, police brutality, and police corruption of the LAPD, which includes a recent period when the LAPD operated under a consent decree with the DOJ after a 2000 DOJ investigation concluded that there was rampant racism, police brutality, and police corruption within the LAPD. This [2] is what the lead looked like in August 2000. That version should be restored. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 14:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Should the lead note include 2-3 sentences that the LAPD has (1) a history of corruption, brutality and discriminatory policing, (2) a 2000 DOJ investigation found rampant racism, police brutality, and police corruption within the LAPD, and (3) the LAPD was subsequently placed under federal oversight from 2001 to 2013? Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 23:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
References
The consent decree was crucial because, for decades, study after study had documented abuses by LAPD officers.
The defendants in the Chicano cases complained bitterly about the courts discriminating against Mexicans. Yet on a day-to-day basis the Mexican community interacted much more regularly with law enforcement agencies. In East Los Angeles, these included primarily the Los Angeles police and sheriff's departments. With both agencies, brutality against East Los Angeles's residents was routine. ...
The LAPD was rife with both conscious and common sense racism. Purposeful racism almost certainly operated among the LAPD officers to a greater degree than among the Los Angeles Superior Court judges during the same period. Joseph Woods, a generally laudatory student of Los Angeles police reform, called the LAPD under Chief Parker [the longest-serving chief in LAPD history] 'a bastion of white supremacy.'
the department's history of abuse and corruption as a backdrop.
Never before in its history has the LAPD been subjected to outside monitoring of that type.
Declaring that the Los Angeles Police Department has reformed itself significantly after decades of corruption and brutality complaints, a U.S. judge on Friday ended a long-running period of federal oversight.
[The lead] should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies [emphasis added].
This was posted two months ago & has been 12-3 yes for two weeks, so I added one sentence to the lead: "The LAPD has been criticized for its history of police brutality, corruption, discriminatory policing, and human rights violations"; normally I'd go with more specificity, but wanted to err on the side of brevity given discussions of undue weight. I also added the lead too short template, because there's clear consensus that the lead needs to be expanded. // Knifegames ( talk) 15:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm not the only one who thinks the section listing off every division of the LAPD is also unnecessarily long, right? Specifically the patrol divisions under Office of Operations, where I think the short list (between the subsection text and "Operations—Central Bureau") is already enough; no one really cares about the Van Nuys Division's jurisdiction other than the LAPD mega-fans who, judging by the amount of content here compared to the pages for other police departments, appear to have written this entire article. The section also uses nothing but primary sources from the LAPD, but I'm not sure if that's an issue.
Just asking for input here before I get flagged for vandalism for removing the patrol division list. AdoTang ( talk) 16:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans, please do not rip out large amounts of text without getting consensus here first. How a law enforcement agency works is encyclopedic. It's not all brutality and corruption. Crossroads -talk- 23:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I would say that much of the "Resources" section info should be moved to the Los Angeles Police Department resources article, but right now the majority isn't reliable because the "firearms" section's primary sources do not provide the cited information––though I left some of the unsourced material in the interest of not axing everything. The three main sources are "Gun Nuts Media" and two LAPD pages, one to a list of "blocks of instruction" covered in firearms training and the second an equipment list; neither LAPD source provides any history, further description, or conditions of use. The list of what officers carry "now" was retrieved in 2014, and a quick search of the equipment page shows a number of those models are no longer included.
I updated the list of handguns with the 2021-listed models & left what presumably were the 2014 SWAT weapons. "Gun Nuts Media" doesn't seem like the most reliable source, but I left some of what that page *does* include, updating to reflect the source's degree of specificity (e.g., a note about "1987" is listed as being in "the 1980s" on GNM). // Knifegames ( talk) 22:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
A RfC just concluded where I asked "Should the lead note include 2-3 sentences that the LAPD has (1) a history of corruption, brutality and discriminatory policing, (2) a 2000 DOJ investigation found rampant racism, police brutality, and police corruption within the LAPD, and (3) the LAPD was subsequently placed under federal oversight from 2001 to 2013?" I did not ask whether the lead should say that LAPD "has been criticized" for its misconduct, which alters the well-documented misconduct in the department from an established fact to an attributed perspective. Should the lead attribute the misconduct as a critics POV or as an established fact? In other words, should this edit [3] be in the article? Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 00:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
There is a strong consensus to include a few sentences about controversies as part of a fully developed lead, based on these aspects being prominently and consistently covered in reliable sources....I was asked on my user talk if this RfC close endorses a specific wording of how the controversies are to be discussed in the lead. It does not. Most of the comments were not specific enough to find a consensus for a particular wording.This is exactly as I understand it. I don't see how your wording is any more direct than mine, other than not mentioning that critics point to that for some reason. This page seems to have a number of other watchers who can weigh in. Crossroads -talk- 01:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)