Talk:Patrick Pogan

notable

This person seems notable enough. Ikip (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

See Also

Why were the "See Also" links to police brutality and police misconduct restored? "Police brutality" in particular is a pretty serious charge; if he's convicted on the assault charges he's currently facing it probably belongs there, but at present it's NPOV innuendo based on about four seconds of a YouTube video, and is pretty dubious in a BLP article.evildeathmath 20:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. "Police brutality" is a serious charge. I'm not sure why you're poo-pooing documentary proof of the incident, but it's also supported by eyewitness accounts, NYPD's internal investigation and a criminal indictment. The subject's main claim to notability is the allegations of police misconduct/brutality, which is why the links are appropriate. If this were a debate over tagging the article with "Category:Corrupt cops" or "Category:Fully verified instances of police brutality", I'd definitely agree with you. — Bdb484 (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not intending to make light of the documentary evidence of the video, but what it shows is a police officer using physical force to detain someone; this may or may not be "brutality", depending on the circumstances, and it's not up to Wikipedia to determine this. My broader concern with this article in general is that it seems to have become caught up in the sensationalism surrounding the incident it describes; arrests involving someone being knocked to the ground (justifiably or otherwise) are fairly common in NYC (and most other large cities in the USA), and neither the suspects nor the arresting officers are generally particularly interesting. What's notable here is the attention that the video clip attracted on the internet, which drew publicity to an event that otherwise would have likely been considered of negligible import to the general public. Conflicts_involving_Critical_Mass#New_York_City contains the same set of factual information as this article, expressed much more concisely and written more neutrally; the Pogan article is full of weasel wording that pretty much begs the reader to conclude "OMG!!! He attacked an INNOCENT BICYCLIST!! What a dick!!". evildeathmath 14:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you may be right about whether or not it's accurate to characterize the allegations as police brutality. Knocking someone of a bike is a dick move, but not necessarily brutal. I think we could probably agree that police misconduct still fits the bill.

The fact that readers may come to a common conclusion (e.g., Patrick Pogan is a douchebag) is not proof that there's something wrong with the article, so I have to challenge you on the assertion that it's loaded with weasel words. Both sides of the story are represented fairly, with appropriate weight assigned to each. I don't see where the slant is, but then again, I wrote most of the article. — Bdb484 (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I buy that. As to the first part of your response, police misconduct sounds good; if you're ok with keeping that and removing brutality for now, I say we go ahead and do that. I also noticed that there was no link to the Critical Mass conflicts page, so I took the liberty of adding that.

As to the concern about readers coming to a common conclusion, I stand corrected-at the risk of violating Godwin's Law, I'd be suspicious of, for example, any article about Adolf Hitler that didn't at least suggest to the reader that he was a notorious murdering dictator. After closer reading of the source material, most of the language that sounded melodramatic to me ("went viral", "caused an uproar") is in fact taken directly from published 3rd-party material, so I'm retracting that concern. I'm still a bit worried that it smacks a little of recentism (i.e., there are likely considerably more disturbing incidents of police misbehavior that aren't as well documented simply because they happened pre-YouTube), but I'm no longer convinced that gutting a reasonably-sourced article is the best solution, and am rethinking having listed this for AFD. evildeathmath 15:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've yanked police brutality and left the remaining "See alsos."

Your concerns about recentism aren't illegitimate. I have similar concerns, but I took on the article with the hunch that the story would get legs and probably remain notable for some time to come. My inclusionist tendencies tend to trump my recentism complaints, though, especially because there's no real policy against recentism.

I appreciate you giving the article a second look and keeping an open mind. As I'm sure you know, you never know what you're going to get into when you come to the talk pages. Thanks for being reasonable. — Bdb484 (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, likewise, for being civil and rational--the opposite is indeed all too common on WP talk pages. evildeathmath 18:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Merger/Redirect

This article should have been deleted per WP:SINGLEEVENT guidelines. Merging with the section of an article already devoted to the subject was mentioned: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Pogan. Any concerns? If merge is OK, what in particular needs to be added?Cptnono (talk) 10:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this suggestion is misguided. The fact is that there is not an article on this event. There is a five sentence summary of what happened under a subsubheading of the article Conflicts involving Critical Mass. The event itself does not have an article, despite its obvious notability. Per WP:BLP1E, "if the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate." In this case, the event is significant, and no one has a more substantial role than Pogan. — Bdb484 (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Then make an article for the event . This article does not meet guidelines. You left out the majority of the guideline which sets clear standard: "Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.

If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Biographies of people of marginal notability can give undue weight to the event, and may cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options."Cptnono (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you may be getting lost in the rules. The reason I left it out the majority of the guideline is that the majority of the guideline is not relevant. The guideline is for "low-profile individuals." The exception is for people with a higher profile. "Low-profile individuals" does not, in my judgment, include criminal defendants in cases being followed by local and national media.

It will probably not come as a surprise, but I still think this is a silly proposal. It would probably helpful if you could be a little more specific about which guidelines you feel this article has violated. — Bdb484 (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Preventing articles from being created for individuals who made news headlines for a single event is exactly why the guideline was implemented. Other editors obviously agree since merger was a popular choice during the deletion discussion. If this incident would have set a precedent in the judicial system maybe it would be noteworthy enough for an article but simply being in several media markets does not satisfy criteria. Other articles of individuals who are more notable have been deleted and in many cases they should have been. It looks like your judgement is being skewed out of your wish to have the article.

Here are some cops who dod not have their own article:

• Johannes Mehserle (BART Shooting article). Like this event, internet video was huge. Unlike this event he killed a guy.
• Epaminondas Korkoneas (2008 Greek riots) Again, killed a guy but has a simple redirect just like Mehserle.
• LAPD officers Koon, Powell, Briseno, and Wind (Rodney King article) beat a guy and received much more news coverage than Pogan. Also caused rioting just like the above two Cptnono (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Please also see "List of cases of police brutality" which has plenty of officers without their own pages.

Follow-up changed discussion from merge/delete to merge/redirect Cptnono (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

A quick note: separate articles Stacey Koon and Laurence Powell exist; I don't know about the others. Is it possible to write a complete biography of Pogan with the available sources? If not, it may be reasonable to consider a move to a title named for the event/incident. Flatscan (talk) 05:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Oops. Good catch (still different level of noteworthiness, though). Is this event noteworthy enough for a complete article or is the newly expanded subsection in the article mentioned above OK? I don't know the standard. Most of the content can easily stay if it is renamed.Cptnono (talk) 06:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

← I propose renaming and refocusing this article around the event/incident as suggested by WP:BLP1E. The event isn't significant enough for two complete articles (one on the event, one on Pogan). Once that is done, we can reconsider a merger to a Critical Mass article. Flatscan (talk) 04:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Worth trying. Conflicts involving Critical Mass#2008 bicycle rally was taken directly from info here and can more than likely be cleaned up to support its own article. After the court case is complete, parts could be condensed since a simple "Pogan was guilty/not of..." should be sufficient with description of the incident and some supporting linesCptnono (talk) 04:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: If someone wants to rename (I honestly don't know what title would be good) and adjust this article to be about the event and not a biography on one of the parties over the next day or so we can try it instead. I don't see it being needed and am leaning towards a simple merge and redirect being best. Discussion has been going on long enough so I am going to redirect it to the above mentioned article as I have mentioned here and is suggested in the previous deletion section if it isn't figured out. This article is in violation of a couple guidelines already and discussion has gone on for a couple weeks without any change.Cptnono (talk) 01:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't object. My proposal above was meant as a compromise step; given the lack of discussion, it seems unnecessary. Flatscan (talk) 05:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)