Wikipedia

Talk:Police brutality/Archive 2

< Talk:Police brutality
Latest comment: 1 year ago by NotJesper in topic Examples section should be rewritten
Archive 1Archive 2

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Vzandrel.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Police brutality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Police brutality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Suggestions for Senior Seminar in Criminology

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am designing my Senior Seminar in Criminology course this Fall to include a group assignment in which students take one section of an article on policing and work to improve it. Any suggestions for target articles, sub-sections, etc would be appreciated.

We will be working through the WikiEdu.org program, and I believe you can see a link to the course on my User page DoctorKarpiak (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Finland

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The part about my country is partially inaccurate. First off, Etsivä Keskuspoliisi was a secret police organization controlled by the government and thus not associated with law enforcement itself so I'd say that they were not an actual police force and thus, not a case of legitimate police brutality. Second of all, where are you getting that statement of 7 700 police officers having been in Finland as of 2006 and being more law-abiding than firefighters? I checked the Finnish Wikipedia article and it made no such statement. Third the amount of crimes committed by police officers is not increasing yearly, as there are about 300-400 police reports made each year with only a handful of the reports being about police brutality and only a few of them make it to the court. Fourth in Finland police brutality is treated as a malfeasance meant to be punished according to the severity of the crime. For example if the accused cop is guilty of assault, the charge is violation of duty and assault. According to police law 27 §: "The policeman has, while performing official duty, the right for breaking resistance, removing person from location, delivering a capture, preventing the escape of one that has lost their freedom, removing an obstacle or immediately preventing a threatening crime or another dangerous act or event to use kind of force that can be considered defendable. While reviewing the defendability of the force the importance and urgency of the task, the danger of resistance, usable force and other details affecting the full review of the situation must be taken into account". Here's a source to back up my claim about Etsivä Keskuspoliisi: https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etsiv%C3%A4_keskuspoliisi and one about the police brutality here: http://www.mikkoniskasaari.fi/node/105 Iikka Backman (talk) 12:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)Iikka Backman

I'll reply point by point. First, whether EK is a "police" force or not is a useless distinction. Police in Finland is, and has always been a part of the government (Suomen valtio). Only city police was municipal in the past, and even so, they were not free from anti-communist sentiment and general police brutality. What's missing in this section is the history of brutality and corruption in the Finnish police, although that's a fairly extensive task and could be an article of its own. EK as such is only a prominent example. Second, "where are you getting that statement" ... look at the small [81] (blue link), it's the source. Third, I also think the statement about crimes increasingly yearly is inaccurate, because it's only about the period 1998-2005 (source is from 2006). A newer source gives a figure of 800-900, the figure from 2006 was 734. Also, this counts just the number of prosecutions, not convictions. Prosecutions have also been decreasing in 2013-2017. Fourth, well, I don't understand the fourth point. In Finland, besides the regular court sentence, police officers are also subject to administrative punishment, which is in practice either temporary suspension or dismissal. --vuo (talk) 10:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Let me be clear: I wasn't saying that the police force was never a part of the government and I was trying to say that Etsivä Keskuspoliisi was a national secret police organization so yeah, you could say that I chose my words poorly. Also, I've studied my country's history in school and have done research on Finland's police brutality and haven't noticed that many references to the history of corruption and police brutality here, in fact the only cases of Finnish police brutality I know of come from 2006 and forward (well, technically also in the form of EK if they're counted as a police force, you can explain if I got that part wrong if that's actually the case) so I'd like for some kind of source to be cited for that part. I can at least try to explain my fourth point if you want me to since you said you didn't understand it. Also, in regards to your statement regarding punishments cops will receive for crimes committed by them, can you please share a link to some kind of source that supports it? I've never seen that mentioned anywhere before you brought that up. Just please, don't take this personally, I just want to do my best while editing articles here and potentially improve if you notice some kind of issues in my editing of these articles.Iikka Backman (talk) 08:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)Iikka Backman

old headline

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

in this statement it is talking about Denmark police 2 years ago "For example, the Authority is currently investigating a complaint made about alleged violence against an arrested person in Christianshavn on 15 March 2016." it is currently investigating, its 2018 almost 2019 i think that they are probably done. just want to make sure before i change it thanks hello im handatoe (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Article Maintenance

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article could certainly use some format standardization and neutral viewpoint verification. I was not able to read the article in its entirety (due to time constraints), but I found many errors in the first third of the page. I recommend that:

  • a standard format be used for "Examples" entries (I think the ones under "Austria" had a good format)
  • an extensive search for non-neutral or un-encyclopedic viewpoints be conducted and wordings changed to reflect neutrality
  • general editing be conducted to improve sentence flow and structure (according to English grammar and spelling)

I have added templates to the top of the article reflecting these.

Zoms101 (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

New Section Recommendation- Italy

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  Note: These are not my own words; I found them misplaced at the top of the talk page, so I relocated them here:

there isn't a section about police brutality in italy, i suggest adding it because italy is the third most heavily policed country in the world

If this is true, I think Italy certainly deserves an entry.

Zoms101 (talk) 19:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

"Importance Scale" Discussion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I noticed that this article has not yet received a ranking on the importance scale. I think that, as an article that covers a controversial topic (at least here in the United States), it deserves a "Top" or "High" ranking.

I'm making this post here in the hopes that a Wikipedia Team Member might see this and add a ranking.

Zoms101 (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


P.S. Feel free to yell at me if I'm doing this wrong. Thanks!


Minor Non-POV Edit

I removed the parenthetical "(a convenient euphemism when the victim dies)" that was placed after the phrase "police brutality" in a misguided attempt to presumably clarify the phrase. The word "brutality" is hardly euphemistic by any stretch of definition, and claiming that it's "convenient" is patently non-NPOV. Further, there are many cases of alleged police brutality in which the "victim" does not die, rendering this whole definition useless.

More Edits

Removed "In most countries pussy is a branch of the national government. In USA police is a loose network of Police Departments of cities and counties, and no national police exists. FBI has narrowly defined area of activities, and it is not a national police. States have Highway Patrols, and some agencies of states have investigative powers e.g. in areas of health or environment protection. This local character gives American police a better chance to understand its role as servants of the society."

Ever heard of homeland security, federal marshalls, the FBI's cointellpro? The United States has the most widespread racist abusive police in the world. That hardly makes them "understanding servants of society".

From the FBI's website "We currently have jurisdiction over violations of more than 200 categories of federal law." That is hardly a narrowly defined area of activities as well "9. Support federal, state, county, municipal, and international partners." also from the fbi website.. Doesn't seem like so much of a "local character"

New Edits

Added reference to amnesty international 2005 report. Changed synopsis to reflect widespread police brutality in many nations including western democratic nations. Removed "Some instances where police brutality has become a political or religious issue' section due to left bias and relevancy

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Instead consider claiming fair-use on :en. --Túrelio (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Sweden; Lack of NPOV sources

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

G'day

I'm adding a POV section to the Sweden section, the only source, which by the way paints Sweden as a hell-hole, has a clear and convincing bias and is by wikipedia itself described as left-wing. Meol03 (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Weak photo

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Just my two cents, but this photo doesn't clearly show the application of excessive force, and could as easily be the application of reasonable force to break up a knife fight among the men piled below, one or more of whom could still be in immediate danger.

All you can really see is the foreground officer applying what appears to be a fairly heavy knee to restrain the fellow he's reaching across. — MaxEnt 21:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Additional sources to mine

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This list a subset of the references to the Identifying Cities or Countries at Risk for Police Violence resource that is already used in this article. (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12111-016-9335-3)

- Matt Heard (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Unsupported Statement in Hands Up Don't Shoot

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The following statement is made: 

As a disproportionate number of black Americans die from police brutality, this gives reason to believe that different geographic locations carry different political and social views, and as such police officers are biased towards those they decide to abuse, instead of allowing the justice system to properly serve justice.

The article provides a good reference for the disproportionate impact on black people, but the conclusion doesn't necessarily hold, or at least requires support. A better conclusion would be a link to a study showing if there are regions where police brutality is more prevalent. I would propose that unless such research exists, the sentence simply be removed. Pigdog234 (talk) 09:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Pigdog234 I added a citation needed tag to that. All the other parts of that section already had tags, so the whole paragraph seems iffy as possible posturing/advocacy. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
User:Markbassett Thank you. Please continue to consider whether the text should stand. It's a provocative statement. Pigdog234 (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
User:Pigdog234 I was only marking your concern. I would agree on deleting it but suggest giving it a week or so more, and perhaps you might want to start another thread on the larger issue. I notice that there are two tags on the whole ‘Effects’ section that contains this ‘Firearms usage’ subsection, but no thread as stated on the tag for discussing the neutrality disputed tag. The whole ‘effects’ section actually might get deleted as in the wrong article because it is ‘...in America’ (I.e United States) and there’s a different article for that - Police brutality in the United States - or a general agreement to remove the many lines lacking WP:V might happen. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Breanna Taylor

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Are we absolutely sure Taylor's death was police brutality? We shouldn't post it here until we get enough evidence. It appears that the cops shot because her boyfriend shot so it could have been self defense. I am not being discriminatory in anyway. Meteorologist200 (talk) 13:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

New source

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi folks,

This seems like great sources to improve the article.

MonsieurD (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Move request of Police brutality to Police violence

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi dear Wikipedians, It might sound odd to you, but I'm creating this review due to a discussion that I had with another Wikipedian. He thinks that the word "Violence" is more neutral than "Brutality". As far as google is concerned, violence means using extreme force against somebody, whereas brutality is just a state of being. So, what do you think? Please share your idea with us, as it is going to be a great help. Thanks.Poorya0014 (talk) 05:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing neutral about violence as you researched. Violence is just more generic and does not have to be physical. Brutality is purely physical and not all police violence is police brutality. Police brutality is just one form of police violence. For example, if a police officer stops your car while its raining and ask you to step out and stand outside your car (while he himself is dry in his car) for no reason, and you get drenched in the rain, that is violent and unconscionable but not brutality. Also if you call the police to report your car was stolen but the police come and refuse to even make a report because of your race and just leave you there like you are a liar, that is violent but not brutality. Violence, as used here, is the absence of what should normally occur that inflicts some type of pain on another person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bemesowum (talk • contribs) 14:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep the Definition Unless You Can Improve it

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There are some folks who have little legal understanding trying to update this page for whatever reason. Please do not update just to sight your article. The definition here has been updated to meet current legal standards and situations especially in the U.S. We are serving the world with information so please eliminate any unnecessary updates. 2/4/2021. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bemesowum (talk • contribs) 14:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

There are several problems with this request, which I believe you'll find outlined here: WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Editors are encouraged to make bold edits the article, especially if they are citing their changes, and especially if they are including content which is not limited to the US perspective. Kindly disregard the above suggestion. Thadeuss (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Vzandrel.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2020 and 25 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rhenr069.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 13 March 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vak5757.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2021 and 15 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Akariok.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Critique of the Article

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

History Section:

- It is unclear what The Puppet Show is in the first sentence. Referring to The Puppet Show as a magazine would give the reader better context. But describing its usual subject matter lightly would be additionally helpful.

- "The origin of modern policing (based on the authority of the nation-state) can be traced back to the 18th century France, with modern police departments being established in many nations by the 19th and early 20th centuries."This is a broad and unnecessary section that would be better if directly related to police brutality, not policing in general.

- The Hubert Locke quote would be best included in the lead section, as it speaks more to the colloquial understanding of police brutality than it does to any historical information.

- The Rodney King section is confusingly worded, and details like the race of the person who recorded his assault should not be included as they are irrelevant. Reorganizing the information would assist with concision and comprehension of the impact of the 1992 Rodney King riots.

Examples Section:

- This section takes up the bulk of the article and would likely be better spent going in-depth on the issue itself, sharing the most infamous example along the way to enhance the explanations.

- The Uganda entry is sparse and does not specifically mention the use of exorbitant police force under Idi Amin

- The India section should separate individual events rather than group them into the same paragraph to help with structure and clarity.

- The Malaysia section contains no dates for the incident it discusses(the Bersih protests), which could confuse the reader For the Philippines section, including "the discussions of police brutality" is irrelevant to the example. Only the facts of the incident itself should be include in the example section.

- The Hong Kong SAR Section breaks the previously established structure of separating the information by nation. There is also a portion of uncited information, and the Amnesty International report is irrelevant to the example.

- The "Examples" section that seems to be intended as a subsection to the Austria section is not properly organized and is redundant, as this portion falls under the Examples section in the article and would be assumed to include examples.

- The Austria sections labeled "Police accountability" and "Actions to combat police officers brutality" should not be included in the Examples section, but instead be included in separate portions that go in-depth on each of these aspects of the article's issue of focus.

- Many of the Europe sections are very long and would be improved by focusing on listing individual events(the Germany section does best at this)rather than writing paragraphs of back story on each event. While the political and social dynamics of a nation are important to understanding the origins of these conflicts, explaining such dynamics is a task that should be relegated to a distinct, focused section on this topic.

- The United States section focuses on a very small window of time with its examples and thus gives a very limited view of the history of police brutality in this nation.

- While the Brazil section contains good examples, it also contains plenty of extra information that only serves to clutter the well-organized bits of information.

Causes section:

- This portion of the article heavily focuses on the United States, which is uncharacteristic of the topic, which should aim to explain the concept from an international view. Doing research and collecting sources that describe internationally understood causes of police brutality would better suit the nature of this article.

Global Prevalence Section:

- This section is redundant, as it gives many examples that either are or should be included in the dedicated "Examples" section of the article. However, this is a better format for what the prior section was trying to achieve and should be adopted instead of the current "Examples" section.

Investigation Section:

- While this is an important section for understanding police brutality, the way it is currently written is too narrow and sparse to ensure the reader gains a comprehensive understanding of investigating police brutality.

Measurement section:

- The 1985 and 2008 studies are not specific about where the study was done, but it appears that this section is also focused on just the United States, rather than the international landscape. This could be improved by using measurement examples from several other countries.

Independent Oversight:

- This section is sparse and lacks support(citations) for the claims it makes about "groups...criticiz[ing] police brutality" and "umbrella organizations and justice committees" and their support of "independent oversight."

Katielizsp24 (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Katielizsp24

"Unreasonable force" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Unreasonable force and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 19#Unreasonable force until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 00:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Sweden section

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Sweden section has only a single source which leads to a non-verifiable underground website linked to leftist anarchism, which should not quality as an accepted source according to the Wikipedia:Verifiability page. Requesting deletion. Jonipoon (talk) 13:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Examples section should be rewritten

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The examples section is far too long. Most of the information given is better fit for another article. For instance, the Belarus section describes a single, non-violent incidence. Many claims have either bad or no sources. Someone else has mentioned the Sweden section, which uses a self-described "Left market anarchist think tank" as its primary sources.

You could go about deleting extraneous paragraphs/sentences, but that doesn't address the fact that there's very little uniformity between the sections. The Greece section is essentially just a full article about the Greek police, whereas the Italy section is a long list of incidences.

I think some agreement as to the purpose of these examples would be good. My naive opinion is that the Luxembourg section is among the better ones, despite its excessive length. It does a decent job of contrasting the situation in Luxembourg to the rest of the world. On the other hand, listing every occurrence of police brutality in a country doesn't provide a lot of insight.

Anyways, I'm curious what other people think that this section should look like. NotJesper (talk) 06:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Police_brutality/Archive_2&oldid=1188540933"