Talk:DeKalb, Illinois/Archive 1

Archive 1

Police Misconduct

• The PM section seems a little big. DeKalb is not defined as a place of police corruption. Can we trim this section down a little? (The previous unsigned comment was brought to you by the IP 131.156.91.108)

• I agree... This page seems to have undue weight placed on the PM section. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOVUW#Undue_weight i guess this qualifies for a Neutral Point of View warning tag--67.175.221.73 07:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Done and done. Discuss. Gws57 14:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'm going to trim down the text of each of the subpoints in PM. --Sguzior 18:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• I still think the section is a bit big. Can we do a little more trimming before removing the npov tag?--67.175.221.73 22:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Well, there's been no backlash at all about the trimming of the PM article. I believe the entire section can be deleted. Any disagreements? --67.175.221.73 07:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• The whole section is now back. I'm going to put the NPOV tag back. Let's discuss the necessity of having this section here, and try to arrive at consensus. Personally, I'd say delete with reservations because, while I think it's unencyclopedic, if this is something that was for whatever reason well known about DeKalb (which I don't think it is) and we could prove it, it should stay. Gws57 15:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• I can say from living in this town for 5 years and reading its many newspapers, there has been very little press about this. The surrounding area does not view dekalb as a town of police corruption (at least not any more than anytown, usa). The media accounts that have been cited are probably just about the only ones that deal with this topic. unless someone can come up with more media sources, i'm sticking with my stance of delete fully. --67.175.221.73 04:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• 67.175.221.73 said: "unless someone can come up with more media sources, i'm sticking with my stance of delete fully." How many medai reports would you consider satisfactory if the multiple media links arent enough? --121.201.442.211 21:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• I think it should stay, although in it's current "trimmed down" version, the original version spent a bit too much time detailing the incidents. It appears that the allegations are backed by legitimate media reports, being the local newspaper. It's a bit of information that I, for one, would want to read about when researching a city. Furthermore, I think the NPOV tag should be removed since the information is verifiable and backed by media reports.

• This section is still way too big. There are plenty of other noteworthy locations across America with more police corruption. I don't even think the Chicago Police's record of corruption is discussed in such great detail. I think a "neutrality is disputed" tag should be added, but I do not know how to create one.

• Out of curiosity and in looking for a valid answer, in what way is the neutrality of the PM section disputed? Wouldn't it be more honest to simply state that you don't like the issues publicized and are trying to discredit them? As a user stated above, the points are backed with legitimate reports directly from a credible source, being the local Dekalb media. They appear to be fact. It's easy to add a "POV" tag to anything that you don't want the public to be informed about... I found the points to be both pertinent and informative while researching the town of DeKalb IL. --109.221.212.162 05:42, 06 May 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with the above. It looks like the information is something that you just don't want others to know about, and that does not call for a "Neutral Point of View" tag. The NPOV Tag should not be used as a tool to discredit pertinent and verifiable information just because you don't want others to be informed of it. ~ 204.213.248.240 20:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• The fact of the matter is this issue doesn't matter. It's as useful as mentioning every time lighting struck in DeKalb, which is not necessary in an encyclopedia. This is likely to lead down a slippery slope, where anything and everything irrelevant relating to DeKalb can be discussed. And if that is the case, I will put up every worthless news article or happening in DeKalb to prove this point. Like a user stated above, this gets minimal press, and DeKalb isn't known as an area of police corruption, at least not anymore than Anytown, USA. In an encyclopedia article, this seems to be heavily weighted on its police, especially for a small city like DeKalb. If one wants to find any and every news article relating to all the controversial incidents in DeKalb, they can simply search a news archive. The Northern Star's is quite comprehensive and goes back several years. ~User:Abog 22:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry you feel that the fabrication of false charges in an effort to intimidate a witness of police corruption is trivial and doesn't matter, but I'm inclined to believe the general public disagrees with you. The violation of ones right to free speech by arresting those would publish acts of misconduct among the city government (such as drunken driving, thefts, etc) should matter, and I believe it does matter to most citizens. Now what is the REAL reason you want to keep such pertenent information hushed? The most likely guess is that you are a cop, a wanna-be cop or a close relative of one. Perhaps you are one of the accused officers? ~Denver Lag 17:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• No, I just feel that it takes up too much space and gives the town a bad rap, when there are really so many good things going on in this town that balance those isolated incidents out.

• Hey, hows everybody? I stumbled across this entry by hitting the random button, so please do not mind me. But I wanted to explain why I added the NOPV tag on this entry. Overall, it is very well done and acurate, but the "police misconduct" section seems, well, out of place. It seems that the preivous contributor/author(s) for this section have demostrated too much bias in their entries and it has seriously tainted the neutrality of this article. I proppose that we remove it (the section in question), for it has no encyclopedic merit nor does it contribute in any meaningful way towards a concise and informative article. If we (meaning you guys) decide to keep it, then why not add press releases about the Simpsons too? After all, Dan Castanella went to school there (I would like to know how Homer is going to get in trouble next season). But why stop now? Lets add gossip about Cindy Crawford too, since she's from DeKalb and her public life is documented by Entertaiment Weekly and the local newspapers as well. Do you see what would happen? I do not wish to paint anybody with a big "pig hater" brush, and we know well that all police departments have some sense of misconduct, but this is an encyclopedia....NOT THE LOCAL GOSSIP MILL/CHAT ROOM. 21:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• The size of that section is ridiculous. Compare that to the section on NIU which is by far and away the most important aspect of the city. Even if everything alleged is true, it doesn't justify the way that this has been presented. Emax0 07:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

In reality, the whole article could be rewritten, but I've put the cleanup tag instead. The sections are all over the place and should be merged/rewritten/expanded. Emax0 18:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

added city infobox, please expand Emax0 19:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)