Talk:New York City Police Department/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

talking about the hijab-removal scandal?

police officers forced Muslim women to remove their hijab for a mug shot why is this not mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SadiqKhanFan (talk • contribs) 15:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Education

I would like to know what they learn, how long they learn and what are the mental criterias to become member of the NYPD. At Europe you must have years of learning and training and a examine (just paid like a member) to become a member of the police and do your job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Joerg Weule (talk • contribs) 19:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

NYPD is editing this article

See this[1]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

NPOV?

I made this edit [2] to make the lede para about corruption/bias etc. more neutral. It was reverted nearly immediately with the comment "nonsense. these are not accusations" which is weird as my modification is just a reworking of what was already there, only uses "accused" in regards to the same thing as the original. What do other people think about the wp:NPOV of that para? In particular I think the words "extensively" and "rampant" are pretty subjective and unnecessary, and are what gives it a decidedly non-neutral impression. There are also a LOT of refs for a lede.

My suggestion is to change the para to something more objective, like:

"Critics of the NYPD have highlighted instances of police brutality, misconduct, and corruption[10][11] throughout the Department's history, as well as discrimination on the basis of race, religion and sexuality.[12][13] The Department have been accused of manipulating crime statistics,[14] and of resisting attempts at criminal justice reform.[15]".

I feel the 2020-specific stuff isn't really suitable for the lede - it's quite specific to current events and probably won't age well, so I suggest leaving it out or perhaps moving it to the "Corruption and misconduct" section?

The first half of my edit was a summarised version of the overview of NYPD operations which disappeared sometime during recent edit warring. This para was also removed by the revert but doesn't pertain to "accusations" at all, so I'm going to assume it wasn't part of the objection and will add it back in.

Tobus (talk) 09:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Criticism is not non-NPOV just because you don't like it. Nothing in there was anything but a description of the NYPD's actions, and things that were accused but never investigated fully are described as just accusations. Changing it all to 'critics ... highlighted' on a blanket basis removes this nuance and implies that none of the criticisms are actually proven.Devgirl (talk) 10:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Why do you assume I don't like it? I'm trying to make it better, not get rid of it. :) The words "extensive" and "rampant" are more than just a description - the factual accuracy of the statements is exactly the same without them and they make it sound biased. I think "critics" improves neutrality because it implies there are also supporters, but perhaps "There have been number of proven incidents of police brutality..." would work? Tobus (talk) 11:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

We should not state that critics are behind the claims of police brutality, misconduct, and corruption, as if these were attributed opinions rather than confirmed and well-documented objective facts. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I was pretty shocked reading the lead, it's completely inappropriate, nearly half of it a straight up attack on the entire organization, something you'd expect from the ACAB movement and in no way summarizes the contents of the article. 175 year history of policing the largest city in America, of course there's going to be some malpractice in the past, doesn't mean it should take up nearly half the lead and in such biased terms. Compare the article just a month ago to today, shows how some activists have decided they want the article to be a political statement rather than an encyclopedic entry - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_City_Police_Department&diff=960511222&oldid=960472306 90.253.67.219 (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC on neutrality of lead

Does the current selection of what is included in the lead of the article break WP:NPOV, and should it be reverted to the previous lead from one month ago?

• Article on June 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_City_Police_Department&oldid=960511222
• Article on July 12 (current): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_City_Police_Department&oldid=966826742

Bec755 (talk) 08:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC) — Bec755 (talk • contribs) has made no other edits outside this topic.

Survey (neutrality of lead)

• 12 July lead. The other lead is filled to the brim with minutiae about the gear that the NYPD has and numbers on each unit. That is stuff that belongs in the body (the lead is unreadable with it in it). The 12 July lead is slimmed down and actually includes a summary of the most substantial section of the body (the one about 'corruption and misconduct', which links to this enormous fork:[3]). I'd also like to note that the proposer of the RfC has never edited Wikipedia before starting this RfC and is very likely a COI account, given that the NYPD has been confirmed to be editing this article[4]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• 03 June lead. Basically copy pasting what I wrote a couple days ago, the current lead is completely inappropriate, nearly half of it a straight up attack on the entire organization, something you'd expect from the ACAB movement and in no way properly summarizes the contents of the article. 175 year history of policing the largest city in America, of course there's going to be some malpractice in the past, doesn't mean it should take up nearly half the lead and in such biased terms. Comparing the article just a month ago to today shows how some activists have decided they want the article to be a political statement rather than an encyclopedic entry. 90.253.67.219 (talk) 15:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

  This account made it's first edit two days ago and it was to this page. The NYPD page has been confirmed to have edits by the NYPD itself in recent days. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

  My IP is from the UK, you really need to get a grip. You're the one that re-wrote the lead with this clear political bent, which is reflected in your editing history. 90.253.67.219 (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

  Exactly. It is totally irrelevant that the above IP made it's first edit two days ago. Snooganssnoogans is using that fact to drum up a possible conspiracy theory that the NYPD made the specific comment above...without any evidence. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• 12 July lead but shortened. Ditch the second paragraph entirely, leave just the first and third. Second paragraph to me belongs in the body, not in the first glance top.74.124.47.10 (talk) 15:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Neither As I explained here, there's an issue of WP:UNDUE. The lede was and to some extent still is being overwhelmed with attacks and negativity. Whether it is warranted or not is not ours to decide. We are an encyclopedia. We are required to be neutral, and leave judgment to others. The lede needs to be entirely rewritten to balance negative and positive. Both can be emphasized further in the article. The status quo is unacceptable per our policy. Also, the last paragraph about fictionalizations does not belong in the lede at all. A subsection highlighting this would be useful, with a sampling of fictionalizations or even a link to a main, perhaps list, article that lists all the fictionalizations. But, not in the lede, and most especially when there's no subsection on it, per MOS:INTRO. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Neither. The old June 3 lead has a bunch of trivial crud that ought to be retained only in the body. However, the condensed July 12 lead goes a little too far in its condensing (e.g. by removing entirely any description of the number of officers in the NYPD). I do think it'd be appropriate to mention some of the criticisms of the NYPD, given the substantial body of content in RS about them, but the second paragraph of the July 12 lead goes too far without any balance and thus strays into NPOV territory. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Neither Both are WP:UNDUE. The older lead is so laudatory it looks like it was created by the NYPD Public Information office. The newer one removes basic information to emphasize only the record of corruption and other negative behavior. A policy-compliant lead would include some of each and comply with MOS:LEAD The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. Neither lead offered for consideration does that. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Neither per Eggishorn. Both versions contain cruft; for example, The NYPD's regulations are compiled in title 38 of the New York City Rules does not appear lede-worthy. The bit about fictional portrayals might be acceptable if there were material in the article body to back it up (at a guess, NYC and Los Angeles probably lead in fictionalizations), but that section isn't there. XOR'easter (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
• Neither The old lede needs to be updated/cleaned up, the new one had a decidedly non-neutral tone. Tobus (talk) 01:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
• In between. The 12 July lead is short and concise, whereas the 3 July one is packed with too many details. However, some details such as the approximate size of the force (around 40,000) are very important and should not be omitted. The 12 July lead is overly detailed on criticism and recent protests, particularly in regards to its short overall size.--Mvqr (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
• Neither. Agree with some of the other comments about the old vs. the new. I think the "extensive history" comment is inappropriate. Such items as racism, sexism, etc, probably deserve a mention in the lead.....but not with it taking up nearly half/a third of it.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Neither - per Eggishorn and XOR'easter - Idealigic (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• 03 June lead. - Pending a shorter version that excludes soapboxing unrelated to body content or topic. Or it could just take the 12 July lead and drop the brutality paragraph and go on from there. I think the lead should summarize the article per WP:LEAD, and the top of the newer does well except for missing the number of officers. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• 03 June version and work on it from there. It's the WP:STATUSQUO anyway. Excess can be cut, but the number of officers should be mentioned, as well as a decent amount of discussion of their activities. Some discussion of criticism in the lead is good, but it shouldn't be so disproportionate like the 12 July version, and it needs POV removal (e.g. "extensive", "rampantly") and verification (see below where I caught a WP:V failure. That version is very July 2020. Editors should keep the WP:10YT in mind. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Neither. The June 3 version is too overloaded with minor details. The July 12 lead is too much in the other extreme, being too brief to be meaningful. A good lead would include the (1) staffing, (2) general overview of duties, (3) resources, and (4) criticisms. (1-3) are included in the June 3 lead, and (4) is in the July 12 lead. I personally would like to see a little more of what the NYPD does, than what's currently in the lead. epicgenius (talk) 03:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (neutrality of lead)

This RfC is really asking two separate questions: (1) should the lead be condensed?, and (2) should the corruption/brutality paragraph be added? They should be separated; combining them into a single RfC is going to muddle things. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah. I think it's clear the lede needs to change. What it changes to is subjective, and doesn't have any either/or options I think. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• I answered the survey, but my view would be: (1) yes, the original lead is too long and overly detailed. (2) Brutality/Corruption: yes, but shorter, less than a paragraph. Maybe a sentence or two.--Mvqr (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• I don't know that the NYPD is any more corrupt or brutal than what is par for the course in the United States. Which is plenty bad enough. Anyhow, I wish you all luck and agree with the goals as outlined above.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• The 12 July lead material needs way more scrutiny, and in fact after the RfC should probably be reverted and reintroduced slowly. I just did a super easy spot check. It says, The NYPD has a culture of retaliation against whistleblowers and resisting attempts at criminal justice reform. sourced to this: [5] That doesn't say anything about whistleblowers. The context of the source shows the only "resisting attempts at criminal justice reform" being talked about is a recent (singular) change in New York State's bail laws which not only the NYPD but also the mayor, governor, and Democrats in the state legislature were pushing to have changed again, blaming it for an uptick in crime. So it's rather POV to imply that only the NYPD opposed it. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• I started a discussion on the NPOV noticeboard about attempts to add the broken windows stuff to the lead.[6] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Consensus (neutrality of lead)

Is it time to wrap this up? The RFC has been up for nearly 2 weeks and there hasn't been a new comment for over a week. Tobus (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Does anybody have any further comments? If not I'm going to close this and edit the article accordingly. Tobus (talk) 10:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

You voted. Someone uninvolved should close.--Mvqr (talk) 10:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, unless the community's response is clear and we can agree on the outcome without a formal closing? Tobus (talk) 13:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

So I've just gone to the "Request for closure" page to start the process and item 1 says: "Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion.", and "The default length of a formal request for comment is 30 days ...; if consensus becomes clear before that and discussion has slowed, then it may be closed early". I think this is pretty clear case, but does anybody disagree that the above RFC discussion fits both of those criteria? Tobus (talk) 05:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm calling consensus on this as the outcome seems clear. Of the 13 responses so far:

• Only 2 support keeping either June 03 or June 12 as is. Of the others 8 say "Neither"/"In between" and 3 suggest modification ("12 July lead but shortened", "03 June lead. - Pending a shorter version" and "03 June version and work on it"). So it's clear neither is preferred.
• 7 explicitly suggest shortening/condensing the June 03 version
• 8 explicitly say the the June 12 version has WP:NPOV issues
• 6 explicitly support including negative views in a balanced way

So I think a fair consensus is that neither June 03 or June 12 is appropriate - the June 03 is too long/irrelevant and the June 12 is too negative. We need to shorten/summarise the June 03 version and remove the negative bias of the June 12 version while still mentioning the issues.

The contents of the June 03 version appear to have already been summarised and condensed into the opening paragraph of the current version, so I think that may have already been resolved. Balancing the June 12 version is a bit more difficult as "good news is not news" so there's not much discussion of explicitly positive aspects in the main body... I've had a go at it though and have tried to balance the size, activity, effectiveness and mainstream public opinion against the negative aspects but have possibly strayed into WP:OR and/or too far from the body.

I've committed 2 edits to the lede - firstly a version that simply removes the NPOV paragraph. I see this as a "half-way step" as it resolves the immediate NPOV issue and the June 03 issue (already done), but doesn't mention the negatives which is something supported by the RFC. I suggest we use it as the WP:STATUSQUO until a satisfactory 2nd para is found (reverting back to the NPOV paragraph would be a step backwards in terms of both this RFC and WP policy). The 2nd edit is a suggestion for such a 2nd para - it also restores the size which a few comments suggested keeping from June 03.

Tobus (talk) 02:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

It's absurd to cherrypick content from public opinion polls. The very same poll that shows that the public "generally approves" of the NYPD shows that the public also sees police brutality and corruption as problems. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

You know it's possible to both approve of something in general _AND_ think it's not perfect at the same time right? "Cherrypicking" would mean these data are small examples taken from a larger set that shows the opposite result. This is not true, I chose these sources because a) they are not from the NYPD themselves, and b) because they pertain specifically to the NYPD and not US police in general, and c) they're all that I could find that meet the first two criteria. I ask you to consider the possibility that the general public _MAY_ in fact have an overall positive opinion of the NYPD, despite it's many flaws... and ask that if you have data that says differently to please point me at it. Tobus (talk) 05:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with Tobus. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

In what possible way is it compliant with NPOV to pick parts of a poll that is favorable to an organization and cram it into a lead while omitting unfavorable parts from the very same poll? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

And now the lead cites the "broken windows" policy as having been successful in reducing the NY crime rate? And it cites the NY Post editorial board in support of this content? Absolutely indefensible content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

It's compliant with NPOV because unfavourable opinions _ARE_ mentioned, in the very same sentence! NPOV means providing both sides - if we don't mention the positive aspects/opinions then there'd be a clear negative bias (like in the June 15 version that the RFC rejected).

The lede says _SOME ANALYSTS_ say "broken windows" has been successful, and cites two such analyses (one of which is an overview and critiques how large the effect is). There are no doubt better sources (I'll replace the editorial with a peer-reviewed journal article), but there are definitely people who believe that NYPD policing methods are responsible for the reduction in crime and this contributes them being viewed favourably by residents. The point here is to provide balance to the negative aspects of corruption/brutality that feature in the next sentence. Successfully reducing crime and public support are two examples of things that people who like the NYPD might say - it doesn't matter if we agree with them or not, NPOV means we need to present their opinions as fairly as, and in due proportion to, the things that people who don't like the NYPD might say.

Tobus (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

This is a classic example of WP:FALSEBALANCE. You cannot pick one thing from poll just because it depicts some favorable while omitting the unfavorable parts. Either both are included or neither. The same goes for the 'broken windows' stuff which is clearly something that is disputed in the existing literature. You can either summarize that literature comprehensively or not at all. What you cannot do is ONLY include the arguments that broken windows reduced crime. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe there's a requirement to comprehensively summarise the full contents of every reference - the reference's job is to verify the particular claim being made. People saying "police brutality is a problem" doesn't negate them saying "I approve of the way the police are doing their job" any more than saying "I need to change my tyres" negates "I've got a good car".

The NPOV requirement is for the paragraph/section/page (NOT each cited claim!) to summarise all the relevant points, and this by necessity means stating both the favourable and the unfavourable aspects. In this instance I think the unfavourable aspect of both the polls and policing style _ARE_ being mentioned, by the words "police brutality and corruption" and your addition of "discrimination on the basis of race, religion and sexuality", in the very same sentence. We could perhaps put the word "controversial" or something before "broken windows" to indicate it's a contested opinion not a fact, but this could be considered editorialising and I'm starting to get the impression you won't be happy if ANY positives mentioned (which is what caused the NPOV issues in the first place).

Tobus (talk) 02:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

This is why I said you were violating WP:FALSEBALANCE. That the NYPD has a history of corruption, brutality and discrimination, which is verifiable objective fact (sourced to peer-reviewed research), does not demand that we "balance" it with one-sided coverage of content regarding other issues. It's a brazen violation of WP:NPOV to shoehorn the "broken windows policy" into the lead by claiming that it works (when the literature is very disputed). It's also a brazen violation of NPOV to pluck aspects from a poll (a primary source) that depict the subject favorable while omitting the parts that depict it unfavorable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you said all that before, and I've already explained why I think you are wrong/misguided. We could talk around each other forever, but we've just had an RFC that rejected a version (created by you!) with only the brutality/corruption as too one-sided and I'm trying to fix the lede in line with that RFC. If you think there is a genuine NPOV issue with the updated version then I guess you could raise it at the NPOV Noticeboard or somewhere, but there's very little to be gained by repeatedly making the same arguments to me and ignoring my responses - I've heard you, I disagree and I'm going to listen to the RFC instead. Tobus (talk) 14:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

C'mon dude, we just had an RFC that decided your Jun 15 paragraph was too biased towards negative aspects. I made an edit that balanced two positive aspects (crime reduction, public opinion) against two negatives (corruption, brutality) in at attempt to bring it in line with wp:npov. Since then you've systematically reverted my edits and added your own so that by the time of your last edit we only have one positive (viewed favourably) vs 6 negatives (serious problems, corruption, brutality, racism, homophobia, religious discrimination) - 8 words of positive vs 34 of negative! This is not NPOV, it's an extremely one-sided view in direct opposition to the RFC. Your personal opinion may be valid, but it is decidedly NOT neutral - the page isn't your personal blog and it needs to reflect the view of the wider community, which is generally positive. So can you please stop trying to force your personal politics to be the only viewpoint mentioned, and respect the views of the other editors as expressed in the RFC. Tobus (talk) 08:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Literally no one argued, "What the lead needs is to misrepresent the literature on broken windows policy to make it seem as if that policy successfully reduced the crime rate in NY City". It's ludicrous content. You're edit-warring this content into the lead repeatedly without any support whatsoever. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The consensus is to make the paragraph NPOV, which means using both neutral tone and appropriate weight. Just to put some context to this, there are 35,000 uniformed officers making over 200,000 arrests per year, and there were about 5,500 complaints about police behaviour in the 2019 financial year[7]. So, at a very simplistic level that's about 97% good arrests per year vs 3% bad - for true NPOV, we really should be weighting positive examples of the NYPD about 10-20x more than negative ones! With my edits it's probably not much more than 50/50. I'm not married to the broken windows/crime reduction part, it's just something I already knew about, but there needs to something positive there or the balance will sway into negative territory again, when if anything, it should be going the other way. I have no objection if you feel like swapping it out with something positive that's less controversial - youth mentorship, getting rapists/murderers/drug dealers off the street, domestic violence intervention, preventing terror attacks, public safety, community outreach programs, saving cats from trees, whatever. As long as we maintain a balanced point of view and don't go back to making the entire NYPD sound like a mafia/ISIS gang. Tobus (talk) 14:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

"there needs to something positive there or the balance will sway into negative territory again" – That is not at all how Wikipedia guidelines work. It's textbook WP:FALSEBALANCE to shoehorn positive content into the lead just for the sake of rebutting objective verifiable facts which can be construed as negative. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

At the same time, it's also POV to overrepresent sources that talk about the NYPD's problems and underrepresent sources that are in a more positive light. It's not the article's job to be another Summer 2020 platform for criticism against policing as we know it. The good and the bad are to be presented in proportion to how reliable sources present it. And it certainly does look to me that your version was decisively rejected in the RfC, even though I did vote in it. Also note that mainstream criminology is not necessarily aligned with some of the ideas being spread in the current zeitgeist. Activists do not always get the science right, as in the case of GMOs. Crossroads ^-talk- 14:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:NPOV means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" (emphasis mine). Nobody is try to "rebut" claims of brutality or corruption, we're just trying to put them in a fair, proportionate and unbiased context - the vast majority of NYPD work is positive, and so the lede should reflect that (while including valid criticisms as well). Tobus (talk) 01:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Tobus:, it is highly inappropriate for an involved participant in an RfC to decide for themselves that consensus looks good enough and make changes to parts of an article under consideration by that RfC. I have accordingly reverted your recent changes. Please do not reinstate them. RfC's are not like normal discussions and an outside party should assess consensus and close them. This is especially true once a close has been formally requested at ANRFC. You have been clear that you are unsatisfied with the slow nature of this but this is by design a slow, deliberative process. Wait for it to play out and remember WP:NODEADLINE. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Is this listed at WP:ANRFC? I can't see it on the list. I went to list it but thought it was a clear case of point #1 "Many discussions do not need formal closure and do not need to be listed here". In particular I think there is "a reasonably clear consensus" here, and that ANRFC section states that when "consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion". It says an RFC is usually 30 days but "if consensus becomes clear before that and discussion has slowed, then it may be closed early" and then closes by saying "participants may be best served by not requesting and then waiting weeks for a formal closure."

As you can see from previous edits I created this "Consesus" section and stated my intentions, outlined my interpretation of the ANRFC section and asked for objections well before assuming the consensus, in order that other editors would have a chance to disagree. So I'm a bit miffed you only raised this after I went to the trouble of assessing the consensus and rewriting the NPOV section, but that's Wikipedia, and I am happy to hold off further edits to allow the proper process to take place.

So to the main point: I believe this RFC (very clearly!) falls under the Many discussions do not need formal closure and do not need to be listed here criteria at point 1 of WP:ANRFC and as such can be acted upon before/without formal closure. If, after reading that section, you disagree then let's list it.

Tobus (talk) 02:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Tobus:, I apologize. I honestly thought it had been listed at ANRFC and an involved close was inappropriate but I see I was wrong. I am sorry for any distress my comments caused and I withdraw any objections to the actions you were attempting to implement. Thank you for your patience. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

All good, thanks for clearing up :) Tobus (talk) 11:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

"NYPD has support" + "Crime rate has declined" in lead

Two editors keep edit-warring content into the lead in the absence of consensus. The content in question:

• "According to the official CompStat database, the NYPD responded to nearly 500,000 reports of crime and made over 200,000 arrests during 2019."
• "public support for the NYPD is generally favorable"
• "The crime rate in New York City has been declining over the last few decades"

The first bullet point should not be in the article because they are random numbers with no context and meaning. Furthermore, the NYPD jukes stats per multiple whistleblowers and external evaluators. The second bullet point should not be in the lead because (i) it's not anywhere in the body and (ii) it cherrypicks one part of a poll while omitting less favorable parts of the poll (e.g. most respondents also say that police brutality is a severe problem in NY). The third bullet point should not be in the lead because this is (i) not a page about the crime rate in NY and (ii) this is another way of shoehorning in content about how the NYPD is responsible for the declining crime rate (content that was completely rejected on the NPOV noticeboard).

The editor "Crossroads" claims there is WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS for this content because he and another editor have edit-warred it into the lead several times since 30 July. It's inane to claim that one-month old contested content has consensus by virtue of two editors' edit-warring. Per WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS, there needs to be a consensus for newly added content which has been contested. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I started a discussion on the NPOV noticeboard[8]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I understand you may have ideological issues with the lede, but please be honest in your framing of the context. The RFC gave a very clear consenus in favour of neutrality and nobody is edit warring (a single revert back to an RFC-compliant version does not make an WP:EDITWAR!).

1. The COMPSTAT database is the official database for New York City crime stats - if you have a better source then bring it.

2. The lede *does* mention the corruption/brutality concerns raised in the cited poll - NPOV means we can't only mention these concerns without also mentioning the overall support.

3. Public opinion of the police is closely tied to public safety and low crime rates. The text isn't saying that the NYPD is responsible for the lower crime rates, it's saying that the low crime rate is responsible for the high public opinion of the NYPD (read it again!).

Since the RFC all your edits have been negative - reverting edits that others have made without trying to improve the NPOV of the article yourself. Can I suggest that instead of working against the other editors, you write a paragraph that you think meets WP:NPOV and post it here. We can workshop it and hopefully come up with something that everybody is happy with. As I mentioned in an earlier discussion there are lots of different aspects that could be used to balance the negative elements: "youth mentorship, getting rapists/murderers/drug dealers off the street, domestic violence intervention, preventing terror attacks, public safety, community outreach programs, saving cats from trees, whatever"... instead of just reverting what others have done, why don't you choose a few and try to come up with an NPOV paragraph you'd be happy with?

Tobus (talk) 00:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

You're fixated on achieving WP:FALSEBALANCE. If a person has been convicted a crime, we are not obligated to add "The person regularly donated money to an animal shelter" just to add balance. That's not how this works. The fact that you're cherrypicking results from a poll and arguing we should say the NYPD saves cats from trees is indicative of this faulty approach. No one is obligated to add cherrypicked positive things about the NYPD to the lead. If things meet the requirements of WP:LEAD, which includes summarizing parts of the body and being WP:DUE, then they can go in the lead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Did you read the RFC comments?

(BTW the WP:FALSEBALANCE link leads to statements about not giving minority or extreme views legitimacy by giving them the same weight as the academic consensus - I don't think this is what you meant to raise since "cops are bad" is the more minority/extreme view here and the mainstream opinion is that the NYPD do far more good than evil. I don't think either POV is fringe enough to be ignored under FALSEBALANCE though... did you mean something else?)

Tobus (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

No, this is textbook false balance. You're unable to substantiate why the NYPD saving cats should be in the lead or any of the other random items you mentioned – you just want it in the lead as a rebuttal of content sourced to peer-reviewed research and which is covered at great length in the body (at such great length that it's been forked to an enormous article). One type of content meets all the requirements for the lead, the other fails in every way. It's unclear to me why you're referring to the RFC. No one in the RfC (except you and the other editor who keeps edit-warring this into the lead) called for the inclusion of cherrypicked survey results and "The NYPD saves cats". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Your version which is only negative is clearly disfavored per the RfC above. We can see in the edit history there was ongoing effort from all editors to develop consensus. Then weeks later you again try to implement a POV lead that does not mention that the NYPD has public support, but does mention criticism. Yeah, the polling does mention negative aspects, but it also mentions the positive ones. The argument about WP:LEAD is irrelevant - the solution is to add that material to the body, not to make the lead be all negative and thus create a misrepresentation of what people and sources think of the NYPD. There is also no evidence that this survey is cherrypicked - that requires less positive surveys to pick from. I also see no reason not to include the crime stats. The article rightly includes and attributes claims of manipulation, but the stats do carry a lot of weight because they are used by the city and state government (which are by no means conservative). The part about crime declining could be discussed IMO (I haven't checked the sources thoroughly), but the approach so far has been disappointing. The only WP:FALSEBALANCE is ignoring the sources which are positive about the NYPD (and many will be - mainstream criminology is not anti-police) to focus only on the negative. The article is not a WP:SOAPBOX for summer 2020 Defund the Police activism. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC) updated Crossroads ^-talk- 02:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

"The development of consensus" does not occur through two editors edit-warring content that literally no one else has expressed support for into the lead. The development of consensus takes place on the talk page where you have to seek consensus for the new content you want in the article. It is absurd of you to characterize the edit-warring of you and the other editor as an "ongoing effort from all editors to develop consensus." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

"The argument about WP:LEAD is irrelevant" – No, we are supposed to follow what WP:LEAD says for content in the lead. It's very simple. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, no one argued that the poll was cherrypicked. I very clearly said that one result from the poll was cherrypicked and pointed to other results from the poll which were omitted to paint a deceptive picture. Please try to keep up. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I notice that you just now literally just copy-pasted[9] the exact same sentences from the lead into the body. That's pretty WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior. That's definitely not in the spirit of WP:LEAD where the body of the article is supposed to be fleshed out, and the lead then reflect what the body says. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

And again, your anti-NYPD version was obviously rejected at the RfC. As for the content I've restored, so far two-thirds of editors who have commented on most of it (aside from the portion addressed by Guy Macon below) support that large portion of it, and consensus is not unanimity. And again, it was stable for weeks. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you seriously arguing that the text has consensus because you and Tobus support inclusion of the content, whereas only I have expressed opposition to it (a two-thirds majority)? And that it has consensus because you two have been edit-warring it into the lead since 30 July? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you seriously arguing that you can ignore the RfC against an anti-NYPD lead, and that you can claim we've been edit warring when it's been there for most of this month? And as for the stuff I added to the body? Not tendentious or against any "spirit" at all. It should be covered in the body no matter what and now it is. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Please point to one editor in the RfC besides yourself or Tobus who said that the lead should include cherrypicked poll results about the NYPD. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Of course we should talk about criticism of the NYPD, and we do. The problem is not talking about the support. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Please note that the sources don't support the claim.

The claim:

"The crime rate in New York City has been declining over the last few decades and public support for the NYPD is generally favorable" (strongly implying that the NYPD is responsible for the decline).

• The Atlantic: "But other policing tactics appeared to have little impact, even in New York City, which led the innovative wave in the early ’90s. Mayor Rudy Giuliani and NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton credit their broken-windows-style reforms for crime’s sharp decline after taking office in 1994. But scholars are quick to note the trend actually began in 1990. Crime also continued to decline after the NYPD largely abandoned its controversial stop-and-frisk policy in recent years"[10]

• ABC News: " Commissioner O’Neill credited enhanced training, upgraded equipment and an initiative known as neighborhood policing, which divides precincts into several sectors that the same officers work on the same shift. It’s meant to build ties between the communities and the officers that serve them. “We’re restoring the role of patrol cop as problem solver,” O’Neill said."[11] (This supports including an attributed claim Commissioner O’Neill, but does not support reporting the claim as if it was an established fact)

• The Journal of Law and Economics: "Skeptics believe that New York City's experience was attributable to other factors such as economic boom of the 1990s, enjoyed both in New York City and nationally. For example, the national unemployment rate declined by 25% between 1990 and 1999, and it declined by 39% between 1992 and 1999 in New York City... it has been debated whether the remarkable decline in criminal activity in New York City between 1990 and 1999 is attributable to “get tough” policies or to improved economic conditions.31 Similarly, the relative impacts of police, prisons, and [social] disadvantage on crime have been questioned by Britain’s Home Office Minister Paul Boateng (CNN World 2001), and French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin Jospin has reassessed the relative importance of social conditions, alone, in combatting crime, where he stated that he was naïve to believe that his battle against unemployment would reduce crime... Controlling for economic conditions and deterrence (real minimum wage, unemployment rate, felony arrests, prison population and the size of the police force), misdemeanor arrests have an impact on motor vehicle theft and robbery. A 10 percent increase in misdemeanor arrests decreases motor vehicle thefts by 1.6 to 2.1 percent and robberies by 2.5 to 3.2 percent. We do not find evidence to support the contention that broken windows policing strategy affects the other crimes."[12]

--Guy Macon (talk) 02:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The 'public support is generally favorable' portion is supported, but as for the part about declining crime, I'm not attached to it unless other sources exist. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The claim itself most definitely supported - lower crime is a major factor in public perception: eg "Residents’ perception of the level of crime and disorder in their neighborhood was a significant factor shaping their opinion of the police." [13].. you are talking about the implication that the NYPD are the sole or primary cause if the decrease, which is controversial (lots of people do believe it, lots question it), but that isn't stated in the lede. Perhaps we could reword it to minimise that implication, or perhaps put something different there: "New York is considered one of the safest big cities in the USA[14]..."? Tobus (talk) 02:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Public support for the NYPD in the lead

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus against this formulation, and a weaker consensus against including polling data in the lead. In particular, one editor noted that the "claim ['generally favorable'] is unsupported by individual polls". (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

---

Should the lead include the following text: "Public support for the NYPD is generally favorable"? (Original date: 18 October 2020 (UTC)). New date for the purposes of a rfc restart: Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Survey (Public support for the NYPD in the lead)

• No. Inclusion fails several basic Wikipedia guidelines for content:

  (1) This is not mentioned anywhere in the body

  (2) The NY Post is not a RS per WP:RSP

  (3) The sentence is not an accurate and neutral summary of the cited sources. For example, the same poll[15] says that respondents see police brutality and police corruption as severe problems

  (4) This single poll is contradicted by other poll results, which show for example that a majority want to defund the NYPD[16]. Why are we citing one poll over another? This brings us to a broader question: Why are we including any poll content in the lead? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• No - The lead is supposed to be a summary of information in the article. Even if a section reporting various approval/disapproval polls were to be added, it seems that results of the polls vary. Summarizing the section in the lead would mean weighing the importance of the various polls. This would be synthesis.—Anne Delong (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, because the WP:NPOV policy supersedes style guidelines about the lead (whatever people have failed to add to the article body can easily be added anyway), and it is both POV and WP:ADVOCACY (see WP:NOTSOAPBOX) to talk only about criticism and not about support. The New York Post source is not necessary, as the poll can be cited directly, and a news media replacement can probably be found, so that's irrelevant. That the same poll mentions brutality and corruption is also irrelevant since we already cover that matter. Lastly, a single poll from July with a much smaller sample (only about 309 from NYC [17]) where 55 percent favor defunding "to spend more on other local services" does not at all contradict the 1,005 NYC residents who say that they approve 67-25 of "the way New York City police in general are doing their job". Crossroads ^-talk- 15:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• No The lead is a summery, not a news paper leader. Moreover the wording implies it is true for ever, rather then being a snapshot in time..Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• Yes No The only time public opinion or public support is mentioned in this article is in that one sentence in the lead. That's a clear red flag that that information should not be in the lead. Right now there's a long section about corruption and misconduct, so it makes sense that that is mentioned in the lead. Adding some text about public support to "balance" that is not NPOV. Maybe this article would benefit by a section about public opinion, but adding it to the lead first is backwards. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC) Edited: the addition of the "Public Opinion" section to the article addresses my issues with this, and I think the text in the lead now works as a summary of the text in the body. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
• No The claim that the public is "generally favorable" implies both that that is true at all times and among all segments of the public, and that's a vast, unsupported generalization. NightHeron (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: I've made this and this edit, addressing the "not in body" and New York Post-is-unreliable matters. I don't see any argument or reason not to include public opinion in the body, no matter the outcome. That section could even be expanded more, most likely. Slatersteven and Red Rock Canyon, I'm pinging you since your rationales were based on the lack of material in the body, which is now fixed. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

  It only addresses one of my concerns, and you new text leave out a lot of relevant data.Slatersteven (talk) 09:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

  Then add what you think is missing. Crossroads ^-talk- 14:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

  Or we leave a one sided version out of the lede. That is what we are discussing the lede, and the issue is too complex for a one line snap shot.16:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• No for all the reasons offered above. A more nuanced and complete account of all the various sources could well belong in the body of the article but this is trying to achieve a false balance based on isolated polling and reporting. Pincrete (talk) 09:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
• No The lede is supposed to summarize the body of the article, and the body of this one does not include information on public opinion. If such information is added, then re-open the discussion. Dimadick (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

  Dimadick, the body does include that material. I even commented above that such material is now there. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• No. Neither source actually states the claim in question, for one. -- Calidum 18:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
• No That specific statement fails WP:NPOV because it's too general and would lead the average reader to believe things that may not be supported by the sources. On the other hand, I'd support a more specific statement such as which group supports NYPD and by how much. Transcendence (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. I came here via looking at Crossroads's contributions. I'm not familiar with this topic, but I see where he's coming from. The content is now in the body of the article, and two sources that are not New York Post sources have been provided in the lead for mentioning public support. Unless a solid WP:Due argument exists for only including criticism in the lead, I find doing so questionable. Transcendence stated, "On the other hand, I'd support a more specific statement such as which group supports NYPD and by how much." We could go that route. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
• No. Per above. Lead also is suppose to summarize the body, and this is not (yet) a significant portion of the body. And the NY Post is a trash tabloid, so should be used in any case. I would say that ideally the body of the article we should explain both high points in NYPD's public support marked by widespread praise (e.g., 9/11 heroism) and low points marked by public disgust (Dirty Thirty (NYPD), Abner Louima). It is very weird that neither of those two infamous incidents seem to be mentioned anywhere in this article. Neutrality^talk 14:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
• Conditional support. I agree with others that the NYPost article is not optimal, however it should be possible to refer to whatever polling they've been using. More importantly I think there's been an error in editing, because a 2017 poll is referred to above but in the article it's currently using a 2015 poll. I think that should be cleared up. The current Manhattan Institute article looks decent. As to this being conditional support, I think a view needs to be taken as to whether support/criticism should be in the lead. If criticism is to be there, support can be there too. But if support should be taken out as a point of principle then criticism should be moved down as well. John Smith's (talk) 12:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Not as phrased. Anyone who follows polling knows not to rely on a single poll to draw sweeping conclusions like that. I would rephrase to say a 2017 telephone survey from Quinnipiac found [these specific results] and move it to the body, if we include it at all. But using one survey to draw the conclusion that NYPD has high favorability is silly. – Anne drew 15:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
• No As per Snooganssnoogans: The NY Post is not a RS, it is not an accurate and neutral summary of the cited sources. Plus, there's no reason to include a random poll result in the lede. Bacondrum (talk) 00:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
• Yes: I'm seeing no arguments that the poll is based on flawed methodology or unreliable, so cut out the middleman of the (unreliable) NY Post and cite it directly. NightHeron comments that the implication would be that support is generally favourable "among all segments of the public"—indeed, that is what the poll says (52–37 among black voters, for instance). I would support "Current public support is ..." rather than "Public support is ...", but I think that's relatively obvious from context anyway. I would like to see more polls, however, to see that this is really an accurate snapshot of public opinion over the last few years. — Bilorv (talk) 10:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Note to closer and the new participants: The sentence as it appears in the RfC opening comment is not in the article anymore, nor is the New York Post source. There is now material in the article body on the matter, at New York City Police Department#Public opinion. A different sentence with different sources now appears in the lead, although that could possibly be tweaked. This change over time must be taken into consideration by the closer.
  Material on public opinion must be covered in the lead per WP:NPOV, WP:NOTADVOCACY, and per WP:LEAD, which states we are to summarize the most important points. Public opinion is obviously important, and having material only on criticism in the lead is POV. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• No to any form of polling in the lead. This gives WP:UNDUE weight to individual polls. The current version is completely unacceptable (and does not in any way represent a "compromise", in that it plainly goes against what most people in this RFC have said and addresses none of the substantive concerns raised above), and the rationale being used to include it is straightforward WP:FALSEBALANCE. Attempting to put our thumb on the scale and "balance out" what one particular editor considers positive and negative coverage is a form of inserting that editor's POV into the article - WP:NPOV means summarizing the conclusions of high-quality reliable sources, not balancing out "good" and "bad" aspects according to an editor's preferences. Furthermore, determining the significance and meaning of a poll always requires interpretation and analysis - dropping a random poll in the lead, as it is now, carries the implication that this particular poll tells significant things about the subject in a way that is simply not supportable. If we were to cover how a subject is viewed, it should be through secondary sources and not primary polling. This is especially true in the lead, which should be summarizing the broad topic and not randomly elevating a poll because an editor wants to tinker with the balance of coverage in a POV fashion. More broadly, if we wanted to discuss public support we would need secondary sources that could put it in proper context (relevant to eg. other police departments or institutions), ideally ones that indicated that the NYPD's level of support was particularly noteworthy or significant. --Aquillion (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The section in the body does contain a source that summarizes years of polling; I've always favored using that instead of one poll. You've simply asserted FALSEBALANCE when that does not apply - there is nothing fringe or contested about what public opinion is such that other sources says public opinion is something different. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
    • You stated, above, that it is both POV and WP:ADVOCACY (see WP:NOTSOAPBOX) to talk only about criticism and not about support. This is completely incorrect - we are required to cover topics as the sources do, in accordance to the weight and focus that those sources deserve and the overall coverage of the topic. There is no indication that this poll is a major aspect of the topic. In fact, if coverage of a topic is largely critical, then our lead must be largely critical in turn, and it would be a WP:NPOV violation to have it any other way. It is WP:FALSEBALANCE to (as your rationale suggested you wish to do) look at the lead, approach it with "wait, there's nothing good about the NYPD here, that's unfair!", then dig for whatever obscure polls will make them look better, jump up on a soapbox, and trumpet those polls from the hills as if they're suddenly central to the topic. I'm sure you didn't intend it that way, but that's the result of your approach and the reason FALSEBALANCE specifically warns against that sort of thinking - it means that in your effort to balance out positive and negative coverage without regard for due weight, your rationale for inclusion effectively boils down to "we should put this in the lead in order to make the NYPD look better." --Aquillion (talk) 06:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
      • You are quoting me out of context and presenting a caricature of my position as I have expressed it in numerous comments. This whole idea of "sources about misconduct carry tons of WEIGHT and sources about public opinion don't" is entirely arbitrary and subjective to the editors making it. These aren't obscure polls any more than the sources about misconduct are obscure. You admit that we cover topics as the sources do, but then advocate that certain sources must never be mentioned in the lead despite there being many of them. At any rate, I don't wish to debate this topic with you further, or ever again; it's clearly unproductive. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• Not as phrased claim is unsupported by individual polls Spudlace (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• No, because we are an encyclopedia, and it is not in our sscope to be declaring that public opinion is 'favourable' or 'unfavourable' about anything. (and that's not even getting into NPOV issues, because any such statement either way is going to be disputed, no matter what). Firejuggler86 (talk) 13:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (Public support for the NYPD in the lead)

• Text keeps getting edit-warred into the lead. The editor 'Crossroads' has edit-warred the content of the RfC back into the lead.[18] The content in question has never ever at any point had consensus, yet this editor keeps forcing it back into the lead (it was originally added in August 2020, was immediately challenged, was re-added in Sep 2020, was immediately challenged, and has now been challenged again). It's not consistent with the consensus guidelines to repeatedly restore contested changes that do not enjoy consensus. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • The editor "Snooganssnoogans" is making false claims about me, and seems to be ignoring the fact that "Snooganssnoogans doesn't like it" does not mean it has "no consensus". See WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. You've been around long enough to know that typically the status quo remains in place during an RfC. It was added on July 31 by Tobus with a bunch of surrounding text, [19] which was all removed by you, [20] and that same day I re-added that bit about polls on NPOV grounds. [21] There it has been for 2 and a half months, even though you and others edited the article and surrounding text. You did try again on 25 August to remove it [22] and were promptly reverted. [23] And now you are trying yet again to get rid of it. You can see that editors have consistently not agreed with the way you try to frame things in this article from #RfC on neutrality of lead on down on this talk page, and that you were also addressed on this matter here. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

    The text has repeatedly been challenged. At no point has the text been supported by more than two editors. Text does not enjoy WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS because two users successfully edit-war the text back in once a month. WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS explicitly says "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus," so the text on question obviously does not enjoy consensus. It's very obnoxious to see you rattle off guidelines (without any explanation) when the most cursory look at the cited guideline shows that it does not at all support your stance. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

    At no point prior to this RfC had the text been opposed by anyone besides yourself, even though there were many other editors around and that were pointed here at the NPOV Noticeboard. There is not a lack of implicit consensus just because you keep trying again to get rid of it. But good, this RfC can settle it once and for all. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

    "There is not a lack of implicit consensus just because you keep trying again to get rid of it." You are wrong. This is what WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS says: "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus". Your last sentence is also disingenuous because your edit summary explicitly said that you intended to edit-war the text back even after the RfC is over[24] unless there is consensus against inclusion rather than an absence of consensus for inclusion. The repeated restoration of the disputed text is WP:GAMING intended to make sure that disputed content can't be removed under any circumstance except with firm consensus to remove. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

    And that material was indeed "not disputed or reverted by another editor" for long time periods, so there was implicit consensus for it. Implicit consensus doesn't count for nothing because one editor shows up and removes it; what even is the point of the "implicit consensus" concept then? I never said anything about intent to edit war, that is another false statement about me from you. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

    "that material was indeed "not disputed or reverted by another editor" for long time periods." This is a straight-up falsehood. The content was originally added in late July. It was challenged in (i) early August, (ii) late August, (iii) mid-September, and (iv) mid-October. At no point did the content ever have the support of more than two editors. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

    Diffs please. I looked and saw only the late August and mid-October challenges after it was stable starting July 31. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

    31st of july? So not much before august then?Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• Rein in the attitude people.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• It seems to me that one of the issues here is that this article does not sufficiently summarize the separate history article. That effectively makes this an article about NYPD organization, details, in popular culture, and recent press. Building out the history a bit more would allow for a greater summary in the lead that doesn't put as much weight on recent criticisms or any specific poll. I tend to agree that it would be better to have the criticism be a smaller part of the lead, but I think the better way is to expand the lead, not to insert a token sentence based on a single poll's existence. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• Just like to point out some things:

1. The current paragraph was an attempt to resolve WP:NPOV issues raised in a recent RFC - as the author of the specific text my opinion is that the exact words/phrasing is not important but any changes should be made with that RFC in mind.

2. The poll cited in the lede contains a trend series going back to 1997 - it is not just a single "snapshot" of 2015.

3. The New York Post was declared an "unreliable source" one month ago - it has now been replaced with a WSJ article

4. Recent edits (including my own) have resolved the issue of there not being any relevant content in the body.

I would ask all contributing editors to reassess their opinion based of these clarifications and the recent edits, as the main complaints mentioned appear to have been resolved.

Tobus (talk) 03:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you explain why you created a "public opinion" section and purposely omitted the survey that I linked to above which complicated the narrative of public support for the NYPD? It seems like a pretty brazen violation of the WP:NPOV guidelines to selectively add content that you personally agree with and exclude content that you disagree with. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I created that section with the idea it can be expanded. No one is stopping you from adding that survey. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

As Crossroads says I didn't create that section.

The survey you linked to is asking about how public money should be spent, not whether the NYPD is doing a good job. When reallocation of funds is left out of the question the result reverses (as it says in the link: "A statewide poll conducted last month by Siena College found that 60 percent of respondents opposed defunding the police, with just 30 percent in favor. A national survey returned similar results. Unlike the recent NBC/Marist poll, neither of those questions mentioned redirecting police funding to other local service")

You can evaluate survery/polls by looking critically at sample size, methodology and the questions they asked. Quinnipiac is pretty rare in that it had asked the same very simple question to a similarly selected random sample of 1,000+ NYC residents covering all boroughs, at semi-regular intervals over a period of 20 years. Moreover they conduct lots of others polls in lots of other states/cities on a whole range of issues - it's not a one-off survey commissioned by someone wanting/expecting a particular result or to prove a particular point.

I have a few other sources I intend to add to the section when I get time, discussing how both media and personal interaction affect public opinion of the police.

Tobus (talk) 22:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't particularly want polls in Wikipedia articles in general (unless it relates directly to elections and referenda), so I'm not going to be adding anything of that sort. Those of you who want to cram polls into this article should add them in a NPOV manner, not cherry-pick polls. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• My two cents - there should be some balance in how support/criticism should be included. If criticism is to be included in the lead then support is also valid. But if support should go elsewhere then I think criticism should be. Otherwise the article is front-loading negative views whilst arbitrarily requiring supportive information to be mentioned further down. John Smith's (talk) 12:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Not how WP:DUE works. Aspects are covered according to their coverage in reliable sources; putting our "thumb on the scale" to try and balance out coverage by giving positive (or negative) aspects additional weight is WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Aquillion (talk) 13:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
    • That's now how DUE works. The polls are already RS. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
      • The point is that there should be some balance in how support/criticism should be included is absolutely not how WP:DUE works; due weight is about what's central to the topic vs. what's peripheral based on the overarching range of sources available, rather than about trying to put our thumb on the scale and push relatively obscure polls and the like in the lead in order to make the article's subject look better or worse until those two things perfectly balance out. In this case, lacking secondary coverage, there's no particular reason to think that these polls are noteworthy or central to the topic; hence, they're WP:UNDUE. --Aquillion (talk) 06:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
        • Addressed this above. Not what I argued or what the sources taken together present. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

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.

"Systemic"

The lede was recently edited to say: "Critics highlight a history of systemic police brutality and corruption..." with three references. The first is an paper published in 2012 which "encompasses the period spanning from 1975 to 1996". The second is a paper published in 2001, and is focuses on the 1990's (the abstract starts with "New York City in the 1990s was haunted by the fate of..."). The third is a newspaper article from 2016 which uses the word "systemic" just once, in relation to Frank Serpico's claims in 1970 which resulted in the Knapp Commission. I think the phrase "a history of" makes the reader think this "systemic" brutality/corruption is continuing to the present day, yet none of the sources mention that in relation to the last 20 years. I think there's ample evidence of incidents of recent brutality/corruption in modern times, but unless we have solid evidence of it being "systemic" (and not just a claim, or SYNTH - which would requite a different word than "highlight") I am concerned the inclusion of "systemic" in this sentence makes it misleading. Tobus (talk) 23:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• I've added sources from 2020 from HRW and the NYPD report from the NY Attorney General that also refer to systemic misconduct, brutality and racism. Shadybabs (talk) 05:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

  Stop edit warring your wording in. And the sources you added are about recent protests; whatever they say about "systemic" appears to be a platitude/political talking point, not something that they've specifically researched. HRW is an advocacy group and as such is not reliable for such contentious claims (see WP:RS); we wouldn't use a pro-police group as a source either. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think either of these new sources verifies "systemic corruption" or "systemic brutality" in or by the NYPD as a fact... one refers to "systemic reform" and "systemic misconduct" within the NYPD (referring to changing the system's rules/guidelines and individuals breaking the system's rules/guidelings, not misconduct being an inherent part of the system), and the other is a POV opinion piece about a single incident which claims "systemic brutality" in the subhead but doesn't verify or support it in the text. Neither mentions corruption except in passing. I still don't think there's enough here to justify the proposed wording - if we want to keep "systemic" we could change "Critics highlight" to "Critics claim" or something else less definitive, or we could leave it as "highlight" and refer to verifiable instances rather than say it's "systemic". Tobus (talk) 08:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

By the way, do any of the sources refer to misconduct/brutality/racism as individual, unrelated instances? Do they say there is no systemic issues, as the previous wording implies? There is no source based justification for the old wording of the lead either. What IS mentioned is that "New York City has grappled with the issue of police corruption for generations." As well as reference to a "cycle of police corruption". (emphasis mine). The idea that these issues are only "insantances" is original research and POV pushing that is NOT representative of the sources.Shadybabs (talk) 16:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Systemic is supported not only by the cited sources (which includes peer-reviewed research) but by the enormous sub-section that the lead is meant to summarize (large enough to warrant its own spin-off article[25]). "Instances" is an inaccurate summary of the content of the cited sources and the body. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

You've asserted that, but unless reliable sources specifically say that and agree on this point, it is original research. Since we have 2 on each side here, we should just cut the Gordian knot and trim it to "Critics highlight police brutality and corruption..." It's going to be an ongoing issue from passers-by and this version fits the sources closely. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

If it is to be included, though I don't believe the criticisms have enough due weight to feature in the lead, the NYPD's positive reputation worldwide as a professional police force also ought to be. thorpewilliam (talk) 06:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Thorpewilliam, if you know of reliable sources for that, then please do share. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads I imagine they're easy to come by, and I'm afraid I'm not terribly bothered to find them myself at this time. Thanks, thorpewilliam (talk) 07:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The excerpts by Shadybabs as well as the entirety of the New York City Police Department corruption and misconduct page seem to squarely support "a history of", so I think dropping that part is unjustified. Moreover, I don't see in this discussion the kind of consensus that justifies the finality of Crossroads's edit summary, especially since the "Critics highlight police brutality and corruption..." wording is clunky as not supported by anyone in this thread so far. I went ahead and changed it to "Critics highlight a history of police brutality and corruption...". --FiloSottile (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I would add that dropping "a history of" actually makes the statement more extreme; "a history of" means that it happened significantly in the past, while without that it is stating that it is ongoing. I think the fact that there was a history of systemic corruption is easy to cite; stating a firm conclusion about what is happening today is harder because the sources are still being written and conclusions still being reached, whereas eg. it doesn't seem like there's any serious doubt that the Knapp Commission uncovered systemic corruption in the 1970s, or that it was a serious problem in the decades before that, and there are plenty of sources for it in the 90's. Also, the stated objection to the existing sources is that they cover historical periods? Which is obviously addressed by saying "a history of." --Aquillion (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

"Systemic" doesn't just mean "lots of" or "repeated", it means "affecting the whole of a system, not just some parts of it" - which is a much bigger claim and so requires much better evidence. We know for a fact, and nobody disputes it, that there are instances of corruption and brutality and that is why we can state that as a fact. "Systemic corruption and brutality" however are debated POVs and so we need to treat them as such... we can't state or imply "systemic" as a fact unless it is the established consensus, not just an opinion/theory/accusation. Tobus (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

No, that isn't systemic means in this context. It means that it is caused by a system; that is to say that it isn't a random occurrence, but something whose occurrence is a result of a system's overarching structure. Something could occur only occasionally or in specific circumstances and still be systemic. Several sources I came across while putting together the list below - not NYC-specific, so I didn't include them - made the point that corrupt officers could be rare and yet systemic corruption could still be an endemic problem. Furthermore, it doesn't even imply that the system encompasses the entire PD, only that it is broader than individual isolated incidents (eg. a culture of silence about corruption among officers could be a systemic cause of corruption.) If you are misinterpreting systemic to mean "every single officer without exception was corrupt", that could explain the confusion here. --Aquillion (talk) 13:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Sources (remember that the text says a history of..., so I'm trying to cover the history):

• [26], "But the problems of racial bias and brutality were systemic and deeply rooted and thus beyond the control of a single commander."
• [27], the entire paper is on proving systemic police violence and much of a page covers the NYPD.
• [28], "From Serpico's revelations, the Knapp Commission the following year exposed organized and systemic corruption at virtually every level of the NYPD. Despite reform, yet another scandal surfaced twenty years later." (I'm trying to focus on sources that cover many points in the timeline, but there is extensive coverage that the Knapp Commission uncovered systemic corruption in the NYPD if you want more, eg. [29][30][31][32] - it seems to be one of the common case studies in systemic police corruption, since many papers mention it as a reference point on the topic.)
• [33], has an entire section on systemic causes of corruption in the NYPD and the failure of their efforts to root it out.
• [34] The level of corruption in the Department began to rise again in the early 1980s as the leadership, safeguards and priorities introduced following the scandal changed. A serious narcotics corruption conspiracy in the mid-1980s was followed and eclipsed by the revelations of the Mollen Commission (on police corruption) in the early 1990s. It was clear by then that the era of systemic corruption had returned
• [35] Examples of severe and systemic police corruption are presented from the New York City Police Department and the Miami-Dade Police Department

Again, there are more on many of the individual examples if you want them, and some people might dispute the corruption of individual eras, but it's clear this is sufficient to state in the article voice that they do have that history (the material on the Knapp commission into systemic corruption alone would be sufficient to state that they have such a history, especially since the sources seem to treat its conclusion as uniformly indisputable.) --Aquillion (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The past history of systemic corruption & racism has been thoroughly documented by RS, as cited by Aquillion. I propose the following wording: "The NYPD has a history of systemic police brutality and corruption, as well as discrimination on the basis of race, religion and sexuality. Critics of the NYPD argue that these issues persist to present day." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadybabs (talk • contribs) 17:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

That is an excellent compromise. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Part of my issue with "systemic" is that it's a nebulous term, without clear empirical bounds - the fact that is has no clear cut method of measurement means that it will always be subjective whether something was "systemic" or "a few bad apples", or something in between. Even in these sources you list we see things like "we argue that", "This paper ... posits that" etc. showing that this is not (or wasn't at the time) the established consensus but one of many ways to look at the data. I feel like phrases like "the era of systemic corruption had returned" and "it is not a static phenomenon" in some sources contrast with others that frame it as a continuous issue. In short, while lots of people use the term "systemic", it's used in different ways with different meanings. When we combine that with a phrase like "has a history of" - a favourite of tabloid journalism ("Ms. Starlet, who has a history of drug abuse, was found dead this morning") - we risk using innuendo in place of fact. Since we can't say "Public approval of the NYPD is generally favourable" despite 20 years of positive polling across multiple sources, and instead must say "Poll X on day X says X% for and X% against", surely we must also list the actual accepted instances of "systemic" issues and their dates (eg 1970 Knapp review, 1992 Mollen) over subjective and non-falsifiable terminology that implies more than is verifiable?

Should also point out that these accepted instances of "systemic" corruption (nor a general claim of such) aren't currently covered in the body, so probably shouldn't be in the lede until that is fixed.

I'd also like to point out that this kind of point-scoring nit-pickery is making the lede more and more clunky with specifics instead of general summaries. Something like "Public support for the NYPD is generally favorable, although critics highlight instances of police brutality, corruption and discrimination" is a much simpler summary of the body and is all that's really needed in the lede. People who want details of the support can read that section, people who want details of the corruption can read that section.

Tobus (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Civilian Complaint Review Board and subsequent police rioting belongs

The creation of an independent Civilian Complaint Review Board in 1992, along with the subsequent violent rioting by NYPD officers in response to its creation, belongs in the history subsection of this article. It not only clarifies the levers of oversight over this particular organization, but the response of the NYPD (and its police union) fits a broader theme of endemic misconduct within the organization. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

"Fits a broader theme" means that you appear to be judging inclusion based on whether it fits a particular narrative, rather than on WP:Due weight. We don't judge inclusion based on "themes"; that's outright POV editing. No, an event from nearly 30 years ago which did not even involve the entire NYPD does not deserve one-third of the space given to the NYPD's history in this WP:Summary style article. But thank you for adding it to the history article. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Civilian Complaint Review Board

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There's a strong consensus to include a few sentences about the oversight board and riot in the history section. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

---

Should the history subsection of this article include 2-3 sentences about A. the creation of an independent Civilian Complaint Review Board in 1992 to provide oversight and checks on NYPD misconduct and B. that thousands of NYPD officers subsequently violently protested and rioted? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• "Shielded from Justice: New York: Civilian Complaint Review Board". www.hrw.org. Retrieved 2021-01-15.
• "Police Unions Haven't Only Battled Bill de Blasio's City Hall". Observer. 2014-12-22. Retrieved 2021-01-15.
• Oliver, Pamela. "When the NYPD Rioted – Race, Politics, Justice". Retrieved 2021-01-15.
• James, George (1992-09-29). "Police Dept. Report Assails Officers in New York Rally (Published 1992)". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2021-01-15.
• Jr, James C. McKinley (1992-09-17). "Officers Rally And Dinkins Is Their Target (Published 1992)". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2021-01-23.
• Manegold, Catherine S. (1992-09-27). "Rally Puts Police Under New Scrutiny (Published 1992)". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2021-01-23.
• "David Dinkins, New York City's first Black mayor, dies at 93". The Washington Post. 2020.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Survey

• Yes. It provides basic information about this organization, including the kinds of oversights and checks that the NYPD has, and entails a consequential reform (which is why NYPD officers rioted in response to the establishment of the board). The board is notable enough to have its own article: Civilian Complaint Review Board. The events are consequential enough to warrant academic attention, as well as coverage in the obituary of David Dinkins, who has mayor at the time of the reforms and the riot. The NYPD article has no space constraints. In fact, the History subsection is incredibly brief and needs to be fleshed out. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. The board's establishment should be included in the history section of this article. It's already deemed notable enough for a separate article means it's significant in the history. And the, shall we say, immediate reaction is a significant part of that history. oknazevad (talk) 14:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. The board has a dedicated article with a long history section. It feels worth a mention in the summary. The pushback is relevant unique context for that history, too. FiloSottile (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• No. Rioting by some officers nearly 30 years ago does not deserve one-third of the space given to the NYPD's history in this WP:Summary style article. It is not one-third or any large portion of NYPD history significance-wise. Snooganssnoogans wanted to include this because it "fits a broader theme", [36] which is blatantly POV. It means that they are judging inclusion based on whether it fits their desired narrative about police, rather than on WP:Due weight. It belongs in the history article, where it is, not here. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you going to start an RfC every time you don't get your way?

Please don't attack other editors in edit summaries. Consider reviewing WP:AGF and WP:NPA. FiloSottile (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes This is a significant part of the Department's history, and should be covered in the main article. Dimadick (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes Looking at the sources above, they seem to be pretty overwhelming. I can't imagine a 3-sentence paragraph could be more than due weight for three NYT articles, a WaPo article, and three other articles. Loki (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. Based on the sourcing, it's an important point in the timeline and deserving of more weight than most of the other things currently in that section - though the entire section could be revised a bit to provide a more useful summary and timeline; currently it seems like it's just a few random tidbits. Why is CompStat there? Why does it highlight the years when they hired their first black and female officers? Why is there so little from the 20th century, and why are the existing things from the 20th century so trivial? We ought to step back, compare it to the main article, and pull out a skeleton of key events to summarize here, which will give us (and readers) a better view of where things fit. -Aquillion (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes Per above, sources demonstrating significance. Mottezen (talk) 06:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

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.