Talk:New York City Police Department corruption and misconduct/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Profiling and Discrimination[edit]

There should be a section in this article entry for profiling and discrimination. You can move the Muslim surveillance to this new section, adding in the how the mayor of New York City used the NYPD to harass the LGBT community during the 1960's as part of the mayor's cleansing policy to rid the city of gay bars in the lead up to the World's Fair, and you can add how the NYPD has profiled and entrapped gay men on false arrests for prostitutions, and other controversies based on profiling or discrimination, like stop-and-frisk, condoms as evidence, etc., into a new section. Let me know if everybody is agreeable, and I will start this section this week. Thanks ! Maslowsneeds (talk) 14:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Failure of oversight[edit]

How does this statement violate POV ? It was made by an investigator of the NYPD itself ? It speaks to concerns about the failure of oversight.--Maslowsneeds (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Eure, the inspector general of the NYPD, told The New York Times, “Obviously, we are going to be looking at a broader sample of cases to see if it’s more systemic. But people should be troubled by the disconnect that we determined exists already in the disciplinary process.” Maslowsneeds (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Scandals and allegations[edit]

Should we split the scandals and allegations sections? Most of these so called allegations are actually facts. Many of these officers have been found GUILTY in a court of law and are facing jail time/fines diciplinary actions and the likes. Those dont seem to be ALLEGATIONS as much as they are CONCRETE PROOF.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.241.240 (talk • contribs) 14:28, July 12, 2009 (UTC)


Reliability of Counterpunch[edit]

This issue has been covered at the Reliable Source noticeboard, most recently about two weeks before the recent edits. [1] My interpretation is that text from it can be inserted preferably with an inline cite so the reader immediately knows that source and can determine themself whether it can be trusted. The discussion is now archived but obviously could be reopened. 24.187.214.210 (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The circumstances are different. Nevard (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then reopen the discussion, explain the difference, and allow others to comment. 24.187.214.210 (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As with previous discussions on whether opinions from Counterpunch should be mentioned in the article, whether we use it as a source depends on whether the author has a solid history of publishing in real sources or the subject. Pam Martens is just some crackpot, so there is no justification for mentioning her opinion. Nevard (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the author is indeed a crackpot, it should be no problem for you to gain consensus from other knowledgable editors on the noticeboard. You were given a one sentence summary on good wiki practice, but have not followed it yet. 24.187.214.210 (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will not waste my time arguing with someone who didn't read the RSN discussion they linked. If you want non reliable sources in the article, take it there. Nevard (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently there is a lot of things you consider to be not worthy of your time, suck as verifying to see if any discussion on a source you consider to be unreliable had taken place, initiating a talk page discussion, or noticing how the text had been copyedited to conform with a noticeboard discussion . Now you consider opening a discussion and gaining consensus for your crackpot statement to be another's responsiblity. You're coming close to claiming ownership of this article. 24.187.214.210 (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is Pam Martens an expert in the subject? Is it sourced to anything but CP? No. So it does not meet criteria as discussed in countless RSN discussions. Nevard (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are claiming an exemption based on the author being a crackpot, you need to gain consensus. The text makes it obvious who is making the claim, where it was made, and that it is the author's own viewpoint. 24.187.214.210 (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Read the link you initially posted. How hard is it for you to understand the meaning of "previously published expert"? Nevard (talk)
How hard is it for you to gain a consensus of editors not yet involved if the author is indeed the crackpot you claim? 24.187.214.210 (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you have the slighest bit of evidence that the author is a subject expert, then it won't be hard for you to do so. Nevard (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is you who claimed the circumsatnces are different because the author is a crackpot. It is you who needs to estabish consensus 24.187.214.210 (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Occupy Wall Street[edit]

A new study by the NYU and Fordam Law schools shows that there was systematic corruption and mishandling of this movement by the NYPD http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/25/nypd-occupy-protests-report

I would say this qualifies for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.14.130.175 (talk) 00:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing edits[edit]

I'm not getting this revert to my contribs; aside from the rude suggestion that it wasn't an improvement can the user care to elaborate on why it isn't an improvement? And while he/she is at it, perhaps the user could list what Wikipedia rules the contributions contravened.Gobbleygook (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the original person who made the edit, but I've reinstated that version. The political affiliations of the videographer holding the camera isn't really relevant to this article-- video speaks for itself, whether taken by a leftist, a rightist, or a security camera. --HectorMoffet (talk) 01:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking of removing that sentence entirely as it isn't really germane to the paragraph. What do you think?Gobbleygook (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removing attribution of a source isn't an option. It's how we best represent our sources. Your edit summary claimed that this was too much information, indicating you haven't taken the time to familiarize yourself with how Wikipedia works. Attribution is germane. Viriditas (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who did what to whom?[edit]

"Dennis Kim and Jerry Svoronos, two police officers working out of the 109th Precinct, Gina Kim and Geeho Chae, brothel operators, were arrested on March 8, 2006, for bribery charges" Either there's an "and" missing in the subject, or the officers, who also ran the brother, both had two different names? I feel like somebody mashed 2 sentences together here and dropped the verb. 205.175.240.244 (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The section "Other, large-scale violations"[edit]

The section needs to be revised quickly to provide NPOV coverage. In particular, asserting that the NYPD has a "pattern" of this assumes a POV against NYPD, in addition to this section sounding like an essay. Please revise it to make it as neutral as possible, despite news sources. In particular, this should not be titled violations, but controversy, and must be mentioned as such. Epicgenius (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've fixed it already. I reorganized the content to remove the POV. Epicgenius (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: This article still has several cleanup tags, which were added in July 2015. Does any other information need to be added or removed? Jarble (talk) 07:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jarble: I dunno... I'll have a look later. epic genius (talk) 12:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jarble: I kept the "tone" tags. Apparently, "Protest controversies" and "Multiple-victim misconduct incidents and additional controversies" are too loaded against the NYPD. epic genius (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please maintain neutrality![edit]

This an unbiased encyclopedia; neither cops nor their bashers should be editing police-related articles. Kindly only contribute thereto if you are a disinterested third party. Thank you for your expected cooperation.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will restore page to version before user PhiladelphiaInjustice committed vandalism. --Maslowsneeds (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My bona fide edits are not "vandalism". You had no cause to revert my justified edits.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:VANDALISM Maslowsneeds, PhiladelphiaInjustice's edits do not qualify as vandalism. - SantiLak (talk) 03:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the sourced information that I had added to this entry, and which user PhiladelphiaInjustice subsequently deleted, included the use of LRAD by the NYPD, I seem to recall. I later had to add some of that information back in, I think, so I have to assert that, again, it seems arbitrary which information the user PhiladelphiaInjustice decides to keep and which information to arbitrarily delete out after the user PhiladelphiaInjustice makes periodic massive wholesale rewrites of this entry. There was other information I had to add back in, too, but I can't recall what they were, but everything is in the record of the history of edits of this entry. Everything I add is sourced, and it seems like that even when I source information back to The New York Times or to The Associated Press, even that, at times, was not been enough to satisfy user PhiladelphiaInjustice's arbitrary and capricious demands. This, too, is reflected in the record of the history of edits of this entry. Since blatant politics is being played with this page, it seems suspect why sourced material to credible news outlets is being deleted outright. People are adding to this entry, because this is a growing issue. Why would anybody want to delete information about an issue that is growing in visibility and importance and that is having a detrimental impact on society ? --Maslowsneeds (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Maslowsneeds I am not familiar with the circumstances under which you make your comment and I do not doubt that they are very much valid. However, I would like to point out that the expansiveness of an article does not and should not correlate with the present day salience of its topic, especially if the topic is controversial or political in nature. Rather, all encyclopedic articles ought to be inclusive of information whose substance is germane for incorporation and exclusive of information that is arbitrary, slanted, peripheral, excessive, or otherwise unsuitable for inclusion. Ergo Sum (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hear what you are saying. The nature of this entry, I want to point out, is that this is a List Class entry, as somebody has labeled. The categories under which the page originated (when I first began to contribute), which the user PhiladelphiaInjustice later felt the need to amend under one of his major wholesale rewrites of the entire entry, have given rise to adding major controversies under these categories. Not every scandal that makes the daily pages are entered here. Only substantial instances, I would argue, should merit being mentioned. Given that multiple people can and do make edits to this entry, I think that standard is by and large has been respected by everybody and is reflected in this entry. The amendments I have made have primarily dealt with corruption that involved multiple officers within the same precinct house, scandals that were the subject of the Mollen Commission, or subsequent controversies that have cast doubt on the institution of the NYPD (as opposed to one officer here or there). The characterizations of institutional problems are provided by sourced media to legitimate journalism outlets and are not the personal characterizations of anybody making amendments, as the source links can attest, at least for the amendments I have made in this entry. As to complaints that the entire entry portrays a negative slant, perhaps you are cluing into the fact that the NYPD is an organization that lacks oversight, discipline, and proper management ? Imagine if BP had oil platforms at various locations exploding and leaking oil into the world's oceans several times a year, causing major environmental disasters that so happened to be taking place rather frequently. Would you demand that the major environmental impacts had to be deleted from a List Class entry of BP's corruption and misconduct, just because BP's pattern of mismanagement and neglect occurred so often -- too often, in fact, so as to make you fear that reflecting that frequency would make BP's List Class entry for corruption and misconduct appeared too slanted ? Exactly whose fault is it that bad news is bad ? Who are you blaming for the corruption and misconduct of the NYPD ? On the NYPD -- or on the contributors of this entry ? Let me direct you to the name of this entry. The very subject of this entry is corruption and misconduct of the NYPD. This is not the main entry for the NYPD. This entry pertains to NYPD corruption and misconduct. What other examples are going to be featured on such an entry ? (We are not going to list examples of the NYPD rescuing cats from trees here. Is that what you are looking for ?) What is the purpose of this page ? It is a List Class entry for substantive examples corruption and misconduct. For examples of what substantive is, look at the two amendments I made in the last two days. One precinct house was planting guns on men, charges and cases against which were having to be dropped or closed. Another precinct house was fixing crime stats. These go to the pattern and practice of the NYPD and are aptly representative of institutional corruption and/or misconduct and have every right to be listed here, because that is what this entry is precisely about. And one last thing, now that I remember : the user PhiladelphiaInjustice once objected to the use of homicide to describe Eric Garner's death. As I pointed out, as the record of edits in the history of the entry will show, the medical examiner's office ruled Eric Garner's death a homicide. Nevertheless, the user PhiladelphiaInjustice kept raising protestations against the use of homicide to describe Eric Garner's death, even though this is fact and is or can be sourced. So, some of what you are hearing as being slanted use of language has been raised by contributors, who either do not know the underlying facts involved in this entry's categories, or else these contributors are making arbitrary and capricious edits. If the latter, then the community should question why facts don't matter to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maslowsneeds (talk • contribs) 03:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of "controversies"[edit]

This article is a list of NYPD police misconduct cases that include an official finding of wrongdoing, such as via a termination, lawsuit settlement, or conviction. I suggest that all "controversies" be deleted because they are not accompanied by such findings; as such, they unfairly damage the reputation of the NYPD. Fairness is a two-way street. All Americans, even cops, are entitled to due process before they are demonized. Does anyone disagree?--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I rescind my proposal. Most of the controversies have resulted in admissions by the NYPD of wrongdoing, even though said findings may not be on the level of the normally-required conviction, lawsuit settlement/judgement, termination, or the like. Also, all bets are off now that we know that the NYPD has made thousands of edits to their own misconduct article, as per their own 2015 mea culpa.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Issues Tag[edit]

I added a multiple issues tag containing an NPOV contestation tag, a cherry picking tag, an additional citations tag, and a tone tag. Numerous sections contain no citations of any kind. Many more are greatly slanted in a manner that clearly fails to meet the Wikipedia neutral point of view requirements, which can be found here. As such a large portion of this article, including entire sections, requires significant cleanup and, in certain instances, likely requires thorough rewriting, I have added these tags and implore any editors with sufficient knowledge on the subject and a neutral point of view to begin cleanup. Ergo Sum (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on New York City Police Department corruption and misconduct. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on New York City Police Department corruption and misconduct. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on New York City Police Department corruption and misconduct. 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:

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Page was moved by inexperienced editor[edit]

Resolved. Was moved back by Jenks24.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  19:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can we discuss why this page was moved by an inexperienced editor with only one months' worth of contributions to Wikipedia, claiming BLP violations, without raising any such BLP violations in the first place ? The page for the article should be moved back. There are no BLP violations, as all the information is credibly sourced to RS, and all information is presented factually and accurately, and the facts are not in dispute. maslowsneeds🌈 13:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Single victim[edit]

A large portion of the "single victim" entries should be removed. 2/3 of the charged were not sustained:Lino,Glover, Evans,Stewart, Bumpurs, Perry, Garcia, Diallo, Dorismond, Bell, for example. Leaving about six (as far as I went in the list). Not sure where Stansby goes. So they are listed to "leave it up to the reader" whether anything happened or not, since juries did not decide. Where "city settled", it means nothing since entities settle often to get lawyers to "go away."

And "racial mailings"? Please! Give me a break! Yes. He was a "bad boy." Can we aim a little higher here?

Wikipedia should not be WP:NOTLIST, WP:NOTNEWS. I didn't read the whole thing. Most likely most readers won't either. The commission stuff is good, Serpico and all that. Stick with the "hard" news, not merely listing media reports. Student7 (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on New York City Police Department corruption and misconduct. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on New York City Police Department corruption and misconduct. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_York_City_Police_Department_corruption_and_misconduct/Archive_1&oldid=1149797009"