Talk:Rochester Police Department

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Rochester Police Department (New York) → Rochester Police Department — Unnecessary disambiguation; the other Rochester Police Department listed on the disambiguation page doesn't have an article -- and even if it did, WP:TWODABS indicates that a disambiguation page is unnecessary when there are only two items to disambiguate. --Powers ^T 14:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment there are alot of Rochesters : Rochester. I would suppose many of them have policing units, and some of those would be documented somewhere. 65.93.12.249 (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Surely, but apparently no one has thought them notable enough for an article yet. We don't pre-emptively disambiguate. Powers ^T 13:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Some of the articles do talk about policing, so whether or not an article exists does not mean there is no article that contains information on the topic. Therefore, the only way this is situated at the primary location is if this is the primary topic, not that it is the only article with that title, if some other article contains the primary topic. There is no pre-emptive disambiguation, as some of the Rochester articles contain information about policing. 65.93.12.249 (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
      • If only one of the departments has an article, I think it's prima facie the primary topic. Powers ^T 18:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Sure, the first person to create an article takes the primary article name. Though it doesn't mean it's true that it's the primary. 65.93.12.249 (talk) 06:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Strong move. The original "disambiguation" never should have been undertaken without researching and writing at least one additional notable organization. The wide-eyed claim that "well, there are other Rochesters" belies the fact that all but three of the entries in Rochester refer to small villages (or in several cases hamlets) with populations well under 10,000 (including a completely uninhabited ghost town). If certain editors are now going to claim that these villages and hamlets have police departments that are worthy of an article, then the burden falls squarely on their shoulders to verify 1) that these places actually maintain their own police force, 2) these places' police forces are commonly known as "the Rochester Police Department", and 3) that these police forces meet the notability requirements set forth in WP:ORG. Note that if someone had actually put the effort into researching and writing properly-sourced articles for the police forces of Rochester, Minnesota and/or Rochester, New Hampshire, the disambiguation would be acceptable. Unfortunately, this seems to be yet another case of poor decision-making driven primarily by the fact that it's easier to move articles around than to actually expend the effort to research and write a decent article. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• Distinguish from Rochester, Kent in England. There are police there also. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • But there's no article, is there? Powers ^T 14:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • There's also no Rochester-specific police force, only a Kent-wide police force, and even if they were notable (and actually existed) it's not clear that the "Rochester Police" of Kent would be commonly known as a "department", not that anyone could actually be bothered to verify that before proffering that as a viable subject for an article. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• The above arguments depend on, for each person, how precise-minded he/she is at referring to foreign police/etc bodies by only their official names. Many Americans are as likely to ask after "Manchester (UK) police department" as many British people are to ask after "Chicago fire brigade" or the like. Having the disambig there is doing no harm. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Disambiguation is necessary here because several articles could have this title. The fact that only one of them exists as yet is irrelevant. Andrewa (talk) 12:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • How is it irrelevant? It's very relevant; we don't pre-emptively disambiguate. We disambiguate only when required. Powers ^T 13:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Tension between police force and activist groups

Due to events that took place between Rochester law enforcement and civilians in:

• A 2009 anti-war protest
• A 2011 controversial arrest of a young activist, caught on video
• The 2011-2012 Occupy Rochester movement
• A 2012 anti-capitalism protest
• Several controversial officer involved shootings in recent years

Rochester is experiencing active civil unrest against discrimination (specifically, same-sex rights and racism) pro-authoritarian and pro-corporate political figures, law enforcement officials, and local organizations. Much of this is targeted at the Rochester Police Department due to their questionable tactics and responses to the above incidents, amongst others.

Both the Rochester Police Department and these activist groups are guilty of manipulating information and this Wikipedia page is now being used as a medium to communicate a potentially biased view of past and present events.

This section is to acknowledge not only that this is happening, but that this article is being watched and appropriate responses will be taken to guarantee that this article remains accurate and neutral in regards to existing Wikipedia policies and rules, in addition to being used to discuss the verifiability of existing information along with new information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BinaryMn (talk • contribs) 20:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The accusation of "manipulation of information" is overboard and unspecific. Some of instances discussed are not even on the page. Without specific instances for discussion, I believe the disclaimers should be removed. If there are specifics instances, they should be discussed and resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diderot1 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I will be taking down the Neutrality dispute tag until it conforms to wikipedia guidelines by citing specific instances of non-NPOV and making suggestions to bring the article to perceived NPOV.

"Articles that have been linked to this page are the subject of an NPOV dispute (NPOV stands for neutral point of view; see below). This means that in the opinion of the person who added this link, the article in question does not conform to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort."

"Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article. Be active and bold in improving the article." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diderot1 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Response from another editor

Let me start by saying you've definitely covered (at least partially) an aspect of the RPD that has so far been absent from the article. But, recalling that our goal is write and maintain an article that give readers a balanced understanding of its topic, here are some questions to help you understand why someone might see your edits as advocacy:

• The "Police Shootings" and "Controversial Practices" occupy about 25% of the article. Is this really the right amount of coverage? Should I as a reader assume that roughly 25% of what I should understand about the RPD is who they've allegedly gunned down and deprived of their rights?

Have you compared the length and content of what you've added to the coverage of the police departments of cities of similar sizes (e.g., Irvine Police Department (California), Birmingham Police Department (Alabama), Hialeah Police Department)? What about the coverage of the police departments of the seven most populous cities in the US (viz., New York Police Department#Misconduct, Los Angeles Police Department#Controversy, Chicago Police Department#Controversies and brutality, Houston Police Department#Scandals and allegations, Philadelphia Police Department#Misconduct, Phoenix Police Department#Controversies, San Antonio Police Department#Misconduct)?

• The aim of the "Police Shootings" section seems to be to (eventually) exhaustively catalog every person whose shooting is attributable to the RPD. While each is its own tragedy, I'm not sure that they're notable enough for inclusion. It is a sad fact that there is a small segment of the population whose life circumstances bring them into violent confrontations with law enforcement. This happens in nearly every country on the planet. I'm not sure Rochester is different enough from any other city with a police department to warrant an exhaustive list in Wikipedia, though I'd encourage interested parties to maintain this sort of list (as well as lists of citizen-on-citizen homicides) on sites other than Wikipedia.
• You seem to want to present only one side of the story. For example:

• Why would omit the circumstances of the (alleged) shootings from your "Shooting Victims" table? The top search results for the first four entries ([1], [2], [3], [4]) allege that the victims are involved in armed disputes with their families or other youths. Someone then calls the RPD, and not surprisingly, the armed conflict ends when an officer allegedly shoots the guy who refuses to drop the weapon and now that guy is a shooting victim. (I assume the situations are similar for those on the remainder of the list.) But your list omits this entirely, which might mislead someone into believing that the RPD shoots on a whim when there might be other factors (department policy, for example) that require a more nuanced treatment.
• Why would you omit the reports of rock and bottle throwing and crowds blocking traffic from Rochester Police Department#Riot Gear at Puerto Rican Festival? (See [5], [6], [7], [8]). The way that section reads now emphasizes the "overwhelming force" aspect without helping the reader understand why the RPD might react this way.
• Rochester Police Department#Operation Cool Down uses the language "black and brown neighborhoods". Did the RPD actually characterize their efforts this way? Perhaps this is your own characterization? It doesn't sound like WP:NPOV#Impartial tone.
• Rochester Police Department#Operation Cool Down is presented with little context. Why omit discussion that it is in response to higher rates of murder and assault in the city that coincide with the 2007–2012 global financial crisis? There is at least one website that advances the claim that "For Rochester, we found that the violent crime rate is one of the highest in the nation, across communities of all sizes (both large and small)." That would be material to understanding the forces driving the operation (i.e., public outcry to stop violence).

I could go on, but instead, let me challenge you with the following:

• Is it possible to change your focus from exhaustive documentation to instead presenting the only the most notable incidents in which the RPD has been accused of misconduct?
• Is it possible to widen your focus from the most recent incidents to include incidents from the 19th and 20th centuries? I acknowledge you've made some effort in the "Shooting Victims" table for the latter half of the 20th century. I also acknowledge this can be a labor-intensive undertaking.
• Is it possible to widen your focus from covering alleged misconduct to other sections of the article that could use some work to bring them up to the level of New York City Police Department, Boston Police Department, or other high-profile metropolitan police departments? Rank structure and insignia, force demographics, equipment, and more could use the help of a knowledgeable editor.
• Is it possible to widen your focus to cover other law enforcement bodies in New York and other states?

Again, I think adding the alleged misconduct coverage is necessary to help readers understand RPD as a subject, it just needs WP:BALANCE and perspective.

-- DanielPenfield (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure controversies or misconduct is the right percentage of the article. Though I don't think the article documents many of the overall controversies (for instance it doesn't even have the Emily Good incident), the the possible percentage problem is solved more by expanding other sections than by taking away significant controversies or taking away cataloging of police shootings. If the controversies section were to get massive I think it could be linked from this page to another wikipedia article. A lot sections of the article need expert attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diderot1 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=

  Triggered by \bfacebook\.com/l\.php\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 19:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120809044957/http://www.13wham.com:80/news/local/story/rochester-police-department-guns/L_RxJRaGrkS_bRZ3d9pI4Q.cspx to http://www.13wham.com/news/local/story/rochester-police-department-guns/L_RxJRaGrkS_bRZ3d9pI4Q.cspx

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)