![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
It is not clear from the article whether this "slang" / associated practice is isolated to the US or not. I'm from the UK and I thought this sort of thing had stopped happening here, possibly even even twenty / thirty years ago. If it is maybe an explicit delaration of the same should be made near the beginning of the article. Maybe "US police slang" would be appropriate? 79.66.205.219 ( talk) 21:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Even though the current title of this article is "police perjury", it seems like the content is specifically about the term testilying.
I think the title should be changed back to reflect the original purpose and the actual content. Barring objections, I'll make the change in a couple of weeks.
69.158.90.85 ( talk) 16:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Article seems too heavily focussed on a a single POV with limited number of sources - including citations for Alan Dershowitz, Joseph D. McNamara, and historical articles from the Boston Globe and Los Angeles Times. As presented, all these sources carry the same POV. These may be acceptable sources, but no alternative POV, ideas or discussion is presented to the audience. Hatnote added. SomeThingsLaw ( talk) 01:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your recent contributions, 7&6. I see you added back the unsourced supposed Boston Globe editorial. As I said in my edit description, I searched the EbscoHost Newspaper Source database, which is supposed to include the Boston Globe, and I couldn't find a Boston Globe editorial from 2003 that included even simply the word "testilying", even though I found other Boston Globe articles from 2003 in that database. Given that, I'd say the burden of proof is on whoever wants to include that quotation, to find evidence that it actually did come from a Boston Globe editorial. Any objections to my removing it again? Jbening ( talk) 05:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
It is not clear from the article whether this "slang" / associated practice is isolated to the US or not. I'm from the UK and I thought this sort of thing had stopped happening here, possibly even even twenty / thirty years ago. If it is maybe an explicit delaration of the same should be made near the beginning of the article. Maybe "US police slang" would be appropriate? 79.66.205.219 ( talk) 21:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Even though the current title of this article is "police perjury", it seems like the content is specifically about the term testilying.
I think the title should be changed back to reflect the original purpose and the actual content. Barring objections, I'll make the change in a couple of weeks.
69.158.90.85 ( talk) 16:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Article seems too heavily focussed on a a single POV with limited number of sources - including citations for Alan Dershowitz, Joseph D. McNamara, and historical articles from the Boston Globe and Los Angeles Times. As presented, all these sources carry the same POV. These may be acceptable sources, but no alternative POV, ideas or discussion is presented to the audience. Hatnote added. SomeThingsLaw ( talk) 01:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your recent contributions, 7&6. I see you added back the unsourced supposed Boston Globe editorial. As I said in my edit description, I searched the EbscoHost Newspaper Source database, which is supposed to include the Boston Globe, and I couldn't find a Boston Globe editorial from 2003 that included even simply the word "testilying", even though I found other Boston Globe articles from 2003 in that database. Given that, I'd say the burden of proof is on whoever wants to include that quotation, to find evidence that it actually did come from a Boston Globe editorial. Any objections to my removing it again? Jbening ( talk) 05:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)