Talk:Copwatch

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 27 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Anonrimas.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Worthless Wiki

Due to a list of biased Wikipedia administrators who insist on flaunting their admin privileges (and insecurity issues) by repeatedly vandalizing pages that contain information about topics that they simply "don't like", this information page has become completely worthless.

Some encyclopedia this has become. It is utterly worthless when it comes to anything that an Admin may find controversial or disagreeable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.42.117 (talk) 07:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note that it is not the goal of Wikipedia to have articles tailored to the views of specific users. Wikipedia provides guidelines on research (WP:Reliable sources), potential bias (WP: NPOV), and prior publication of views (WP:No original research) to avoid becoming a platform for emerging views or blatant opinion-mongering.

Reverting an edit that blatantly ignores such basic policies is not vandalism; it's simply editing.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"please note that it is not the goal of Wikipedia to have articles tailored to the views of specific users" - unless of course the specific user is a admin. A fine example of this would be the tremendous destruction caused by Wiki Terrorist Jeffery O. Gustafson who has on at least one occasion removed the entire copwatch page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.173.102.109 (talk) 06:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.203.51 (talk)

Anyone can clearly see (at least, it seems to me) that the account of Jeffrey Gustafson has been deleted. Did he ever have any special administrative powers? If so, it looks like now he isn't even allowed to post. I find it hard to imagine what you could possibly be complaining about.

Certainly nobody has attempted to delete this entire article recently.

However I do notice that you have deleted the entire criticism section. So it appears you are the one attempting to suppress views you don't agree with. How can you possibly justify blatant vandalism like this? Just because you are upset with somebody that you had an edit war with, sometime in the past?

If you want to edit this article, register an account and play by the rules. Otherwise everything you post will be promptly (and properly) reverted. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Really? If he doesn't register an account you will delete everything he posts? Where is that allowed in the rules and policies you were ranting about above? Are you going to do the same to me, an unregistered user? Perhaps Factchecker atyourservice should do some factchecking into your statement above, as it just further confirms the previous unregistered user's complaints about people like you and why your ilk are destroying any chance of Wikipedia ever becoming anything to be taken seriously. 173.20.165.112 (talk) 03:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Sherman Austin==

Is Sherman Austin, the convicted felon and anarchist, the same fellow who is involved in CopWatch in Los Angeles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.122.14 (talk) 22:15, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as seen in the following article and interview: http://potw.news.yahoo.com/s/potw/40/somebodys-watching-you Factcheck 4uwingnuts 00:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Near-total lack of reputable sources

I moved the comments by 98.227.203.76 to the end of the page since there is currently a section on Tim Dees and officer.com and this would be a more appropriate spot for the comments. DivaNtrainin 18:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The only reliable reference in the whole article is a single USA Today article, and it was misattributed in at least one statement contained in the article.

Most of the statements in the article are entirely without attribution.Factcheck 4uwingnuts 19:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I have added citations for everything that had been tagged, and removed the statements added by Divantrainin about policies that CW does not have, since one of them was contradicted by the sources, and I could find no evidence for the other. Thanks for your help in cleaning up this article. Mycota 18:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

What the...?!

The original Copwatch article and discussion page were deleted by Jeffery O. Gustafson. I've been working on this article for months, and now there is no record that it ever existed! Can someone instruct me on how to re-instate this article? Also, how do I report this to admin? I think this is a serious issue, as the user in question did not even post to the discussion page before deleting! Mycota 18:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no obligation to say anything anywhere on the talk page when deleting this article. And because you asked calmly ("!"), I have restored the article and placed it on AfD. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Just an observation, without getting involved: Jeffrey, you're coming off, to me at least, as though you were attempting to flaunt your powers of administration; this isn't a social hierarchy we're creating; it's an encyclopedia. Canaen 09:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Jeffrey O. Gustafson is one of the large downsides to the Wiki. As suggested above, he has earned a reputation of deleting articles simply because HE does not like them. He is not interested in creating an encyclopedia, he is interested only in flaunting his "admin" powers. Many, many relevant articles have fallen vicim to Jeffrey's delete button. Don Henry 12:32, 02 July 2006 (UTC)

Articles may get deleted simply due to no one voting aside from a few delete votes; actually reading all the AfDs can be messy & time consuming. JeffBurdges 16:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe this article was ever submitted to AfD in the first place. It was simply deleted with no warning. It was only put on AfD after I complained. Mycota 16:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I linked to my quotes but I don't believe it is in the right place. Also, one has to register to see the link.

Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splash^talk 00:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Changed Forums and Database

I removed most of the Forums section and merged it with the Database section. It originally read like an advertisement for the forums and talked about non-notable "Civil Rights Investigators". I think it is also important to point out that the database and forums are totally separate from any actual Copwatch organizations (as far as I can tell). Therefore, any discussion and/or criticism of the websites should be separate from discussion and criticism of the groups themselves. Mycota 22:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Perspective

I removed "from the perspective of the copwatchers" from the sentence about Know Your Rights forums. It was not clear to me why that needed to be included. I wouldn't have a problem with it if it were made more clear. Mycota 00:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I was going to do just that yesterday, until I got disconnected and forgot. Canæn 03:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed NPOV statement from "Methods"

I reverted the changes by 70.189.170.32. The entire "Online activities" section was removed, with no reason given.

I also removed the NPOV statement in the "Copwatch methods" section. It talked about a tactic advocated on the Copwatch.com website, but said that the purpose was to "bait" the police. This is loaded language. I moved the statement to the paragraph about that website and used language that more closely fits the language on the website. The editor may be of the opinion that it is meant to bait the police, but this is simply an opinion.

Retagging with POV-check

I've put POV-check on the page, because of the following sentence: "Each group is autonomous and self-governing, but most groups share common goals: exposing themselves, preventing criminal investigations from taking place, defending the right to be an idiot, and working towards shedding any personal accountability." erhudy 13:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I've removed that vandalism and reverted back to the original wording. Mycota 18:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Unbiased view needed

Its my opinion this article needs to explore the whole Copwatch groups more in depth. As it sits, except for a few lines in the beginning, it seems to only reiterate the propaganda (as in being one sided) that the group itself posts, which is very opinionated.

Just be mindful that blatant criticism does not equal NPOV, and since this article is about a group with a mission, the stating of that mission is not neccessarily pushing a point of view. It's just reporting facts. Also be mindful that picking and choosing facts is POV, however so is cutting out facts. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 07:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Why in the hell is every body trying to sound smarter than the other guy, and at the same time you all get sidetracked totally to the reasons we are here to begin with? Do any of you understand you are not helping our cause one bit? Mark.crow.frink@gmail.com

Mark frink (talk) 01:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Removed paragraph from intro

I removed the following paragraph from the intro:

They present themselves only as a group that wants to expose rogue and corrupt police officers. Some of their literature may appear to be against ALL police, using slogans such as "Pigs protecting the rich of America," and they are therefore viewed by some as a radical group with an agenda extending beyond simply being a "police watchdog."

This is horribly POV and includes uncited quotations. And who are these "some" who view Copwatch as a radical group, anyway? Besides this, "they" do not present themselves as a group at all. As stated in the article, Copwatch is a loose network of autonomous groups, not a centrally-organized body. If a particular group has made specific statements, that group should be named. If it comes from one of the websites listed in the article, those are not affiliated with actual Copwatch groups and statements on them should not be presented as official dogma.

That being said, this article badly needs sources for other statements as well, but I'm not as picky about them right now since they're mostly in line with what is on official Copwatch websites. Mycota 04:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

By ignoring alterior motives, the entire article becomes propaganda

Well, here's your citation source, the Copwatch 101 pamphlet. Towards the bottom (Okay, the quote was a little off, but the message is pretty clear) Saying the Copwatch movement cannot be categorized as an anti-police group because it has autonomous bodies rather than a centralized structure is like saying the KKK is not really a hate group by the same rationale. If you want to look at the top cartoon of the Democrat donkey and the Republican elephant clinking glasses as businessmen watch over the throngs of SWAT team geared pigs, and tell me there is nothing here more than a simple community group that wants to reign in rogue police officers, fine, but I think there is evidence to the contrary. For instance, it is hard to see how articles blaming the New York City Police Department for the deaths on 9/11 Top of the pagehave anything to do with their stated motive of exposing police corruption and brutality, nor does how "federal statistics show that cops jobs' are not all that dangerous" have anything to do with brutality or corruption. The line was added merely to raise the possibility that the group has alterior motives. Many political groups present themselves as 'community services' while trying to achieve political goals. If you want to make a seperate section at the end addressing these concerns, thats all good, but to ignore them is to make the article only presenting the face that the organizers of Copwatch wish to portray, which makes it a propaganda piece, the same as if I wrote and article about Hezbollah and didn't add anything about violence.

I think it would be great to have a well-reasoned and documented Criticisms section. Go for it. But it would need to be criticisms from other sources, not just your personal opinions. I'm sure there are websites and other sources that are critical of Copwatch. In fact, the Resources list includes critical articles from police themselves. Maybe you could summarize those articles. My point is that just putting your own opinion into an encyclopedia article is not appropriate. The favorable statements can all be backed up by published "propaganda" from Copwatch. The same needs to be said for any criticism. Also, my point about autonomous groups is that a blanket statement about all Copwatch groups is not possible, unless it has to do with the basic principles outlined by all Copwatch groups. If you have specific complaints about specific groups, please name the groups. They all have different approaches and ideological stances regarding the necessity of police, tactics, etc. Mycota 05:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"Also, my point about autonomous groups is that a blanket statement about all Copwatch groups is not possible, unless it has to do with the basic principles outlined by all Copwatch groups. If you have specific complaints about specific groups, please name the groups. They all have different approaches and ideological stances regarding the necessity of police, tactics, etc. "

That right there is a microcosm of the outlook we're dealing with here. You have stepped through the looking glass. Enter the hallowed halls of COPWATCH and you will discover a world where people are encouraged to nurture views that police forces are, primarily and by design, a tool of oppression by the powerful, and that the world would function in harmony if only everyone would embrace anarchy. Many of the people posting there and here on these topics are, themselves, anarchists. They and their ideas have been marginalized by literally everyone around them, so I think you will find a certain stubborn unwillingness to acknowledge facts. I realize this sounds like a pretty scathing criticism but I just want to explain what I see here and the difficulties of arguing with these people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factcheck 4uwingnuts (talk • contribs) 07:19, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Corrected factual misstatement about William Cardenas video

The article previous contained a factually inaccurate statement, indicating that Cardenas is "apparently restrained" in the video. In fact, he is unrestrained and fighting with police to prevent himself from being restrained. This is reflected in the article which is cited to support the (originally incorrect) statement, so no further citation is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factcheck 4uwingnuts (talk • contribs) 19:08, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Beating of Robert Davis

Did a Copwatch member tape the beating of Robert Davis in New Orleans, LA? That was a pretty horrific scene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factcheck 4uwingnuts (talk • contribs) 07:57, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Reference to Copwatch websites

It is either allowed or not allowed -- not "selectively allowed".Factcheck 4uwingnuts 22:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to what CW groups say about their own activities or what their principles are, I think it's totally acceptable to cite their own websites. Mycota 00:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I would also add that all edits need to conform to Wikipedia:Notability which states that "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Please provide references to all additions to help us ensure that this standard is met. I strongly suspect that the topics of discussion in the Copwatch forum fail notability along with the exact wording used on miscellaneous Copwatch posters. - N1h1l 18:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read the guidelines you are referencing. The topic is already designated as notable. As quoted directly from the Notability guideline,

"Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content

Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by other guidelines such as those on using reliable sources and on handling trivia. The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standard of the notability guidelines."

You may also note that the material added also does not satisfy the "Trivia" designation and is effective protest literature both produced by our organization and well within the aims and methods of the organizations as stated on our main website, on the websites of our various member organizations, and in this article.

Please stop vandalizing this topic and either make substantive contributions to the editorial process or leave it alone.Factcheck 4uwingnuts 19:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Look drama-queen, no one is vandalizing this article. We are arguing over notability and sources. You can start your self-righteous tirade about my being a vandal when I replace the article with "Copwatsch Is fuLLof wankers".

Meanwhile, you have as of yet to produce a source, let alone a reliable source, for any of your edits. And if the exist of a discussion on 9/11 conspiracy is not trivia, I'm not sure what is. - N1h1l 21:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

So,after wasting all my time searching for a place to report my findings of police misconduct...i still have no answers. Email me somebody. mark.crow.frink@gmail.com. Thanks

Mark frink (talk) 01:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Undone

All right, I will undo this and I apologize to you. I would like to discuss this further but will just make the undo for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factcheck 4uwingnuts (talk • contribs) 06:36, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

The list of policies that Copwatch doesn't have is infinite

The statements repeatedly added by DivaNTrainin about Copwatch's lack of policies about obeying the law, etc. is ridiculous. First of all, there is no single Copwatch entity, so it makes no sense to talk about Copwatch's policies on anything. Each group has its own policies. That is what is meant by the statement "Each group is autonomous and self-governing". Aside from that, the list of policies that Copwatch groups do not have is infinite. They don't have policies about how long members can wear their hair, or how many times they should brush their teeth in a day, or whether to make fun of police officers behind their backs. And since these policies do not exist, there is no way to cite them. Therefore, they should not be mentioned in the article, unless another source has mentioned the lack of these policies. I have pointed out one specific policy that is held by some Copwatch groups regarding police non-interference (with a link to a page with that policy listed), but I made a point of stating that it may not hold true for all groups. When it comes to generalizing about CW policies, that's about the best one can do. However, if someone wishes to start a Criticism section (which is badly needed), please do so! It is clear that the statements from this user are meant as criticism, so why not go out and find some reputable sources that criticize Copwatch and use them as the basis for a Criticism section? You might want to start with the sources in the Further Reading section. Mycota 02:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The above paragraph was deleted by DivaNTrainin and replaced with other text. Then his/her comments were deleted by an anonymous user. This behavior is totally unacceptable and will not be tolerated. Mycota 04:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Mycota. And I had to re-add the above comment after DivaNTrainin removed it, and altered the title of Mycota's statement. This is absolutely unacceptable. Murderbike 22:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

FULL Cardenas video?

Does anybody have a link to an archive that shows more than about 9 seconds of this footage? I know there's a lot more than that out there and I don't understand where the rest of the video is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factcheck 4uwingnuts (talk • contribs) 19:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cardenas-YouTube.jpg

Image:Cardenas-YouTube.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 18:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism by DivaNtrainin

After several edit wars between DivaNtrainin and other editors, there was a notice placed on this user's talk page asking her/him to cease the vandalism of this article. The user asked why his/her edits were considered vandalism and Factchecker atyourservice responded. Because of this user's history of deleting and/or editing the comments left by others on talk pages, I'd like to include my own response below so that other editors are aware of the issues and there is another "paper trail". Of course, feel free to comment on the appropriateness of my response.

Diva, I'd like to add a couple things. The edits that you repeatedly make to the article are not in and of themselves vandalism, but it's your behavior surrounding those edits that has several other editors upset. You will need to behave in a much more mature manner if you wish to be accepted as a serious editor. That means no more deleting or altering statements made by other editors on talk pages. It means no more repeated reversions of your clearly controversial edits before even attempting to build consensus on the article's talk page.

Factchecker has suggested one possible way to resolve this conflict constructively. But I think that approach fails for one important reason. As I have repeatedly pointed out, there is no such thing as a single policy for all Copwatch groups. They all have their own policies. If we are going to speak about Copwatch policies (as we should), we need to be very clear about which Copwatch entity we are speaking about. In my statement about Copwatch policies I mention one specific policy (non-interference with police) that is held by at least one group. And this policy is clearly laid out in an article that I cited. But to say that this policy applies to all groups would be completely wrong. Likewise, as has been pointed out repeatedly, the Copwatch forums and copwatch.com website are totally and completely independent of all working Copwatch groups.Let me put it another way: there is no evidence that there is any relationship between those websites and any organization that calls itself Copwatch. For some reason, some editors have a very hard time understanding this concept. It's as if people were pointing to things said on the anti-Bush parody website whitehouse.org as if they were official statements of the White House. As in that case, they just happen to have the same name. That's it. If you want to talk about things said on those websites, that's great, but please do not state that they are representative of "Copwatch" as a whole or have any relationship whatsoever to the actual Copwatch groups listed at the end of the article.Mycota 01:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This merits a few responses.

First, this point you make is primarily a semantic argument about the wording of a statement. Diva could just as easily write "Copwatch groups do not have policies to ensure their members are obeying the law." She would, of course, need to find a source indicating this. Obviously, she's not likely to find a source for this on any Copwatch website even if it is true. In fact, she's much more likely to find those individual websites hiding or disavowing the possibly illegal activities of their members; for example, Copwatch LA features the following text on its website: 'Disclaimer: CopWatchLA.org does not encourage the use of illegal activity. The information found here is for educational purposes only. The views and opinions posted to this site by other users do not necessarily reflect those of Cop Watch LA, the domain name holder of CopWatchLA.org, or those affiliated with CopWatchLA.org or the organization. By visiting this site you agree to understand these terms.' These are not the words of a confidently law-abiding organization.

Second, I would like to stress that I personally am not "having trouble understanding" that the Copwatch local groups and the Copwatch website are separate, completely unrelated groups; rather, I'm really not sure I buy it. Wikipedia policy requires that notable and controversial groups be given ample opportunity to express their views clearly, but they also require that Wikipedia not be used as a PR tool or an outlet for propaganda. In my opinion it remains to be shown that the Copwatch website is NOT affiliated in any way with the local groups or their members; at the very least it is clearly not a parody or crank website (such as Whitehouse.org) that should be immediately disregarded. Anyway, the local organizations share aims and tactics with the forum website, and members active in the local organizations post there. From the outset, the waters are thoroughly muddied by the fact the individual Copwatch groups claim to be affiliated with each other and yet completely independent and separate; is Copwatch an organization or not? If individual Copwatch groups' statements about their own status were a little more clear -- instead of disavowing any relationship among the local organizations and even (as seen above) disavowing the actions of their own members -- it might be a little easier to solidly establish that Copwatch.com is an unaffiliated group that happens to share the same name, political aims, and rhetoric. But to me, it just looks like another instance of the activists carefully shielding themselves from prosecution despite knowingly engaging in or contributing to criminal activity, just as Copwatch LA carefully shields itself from prosecution by disclaiming that it doesn't encourage illegal activity, and that any information about illegal activity is strictly for educational purposes.

In a nutshell, while it would seem improper under Wiki policy to explicitly claim that Copwatch.com is affiliated with any local Copwatch group, I see no solid evidence to the contrary or anything to indicate the need for a separate topic or a prohibition of discussion of Copwatch.com within this article.

As an aside, you mentioned that the policy of non-interference is held by just one of the Copwatch groups. Why, then, did you write that "Copwatch organizations generally abide by" that policy? Does the LA Times article say this?Factchecker atyourservice 17:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

All of this aside Factchecker, the main issue I see here has to do with citation. Citing something like Copwatch.org (or any other blog) is just not acceptable. A reliable third-party source is necessary for controversial material like the absurd claim that Copwatch DOESN'T have some sort of policy. Copwatch is not some huge organization, with a hierarchy and guidelines. It is just a name that groups can use. Murderbike 17:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If Diva can find information about a local Copwatch group's policies on that group's website, then that is fair game for citation here as long as it is presented at face value, i.e. no analysis, criticism, etc... all of that would be original research. If Diva can find statements on Copwatch.com which are ABOUT Copwatch.com and which are made by administrators or otherwise "official" spokesman (e.g. posts by mere users wouldn't count, but the website's own FAQ would) then that is also fair game as I understand the rules. And if these are NOT acceptable, then a great deal of this article is already improperly sourced.Factchecker atyourservice 19:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, well, the issue at hand is Diva's addition of information about policies that Copwatch does NOT have. Does that FAQ have something about policies that Copwatch does NOT have? Murderbike 19:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with people adding and citing information from the Copwatch websites. In fact, I think that's essential. My only problem is in conflating the websites and actual Copwatch groups. You say you see "no evidence to the contrary" that Copwatch.com is affiliated with a local group, but that's certainly not grounds to make such an assertion. When making a claim, what one needs to present is positive evidence, not lack of negative evidence. Again, I just think when editors speak about the "policies" of Copwatch.com, they need to make it clear that they're not the policies of "Copwatch". Is that so much to ask?

Your question about my "generally abide by" qualification is a valid one. Honestly, this was based on my personal correspondence with Copwatch groups. Since that kind of information is not verifiable, I will gladly change the wording to make it clear that only this one group has a publicly-stated policy on this issue.

You may be right when you say that the disclaimer on the LA website is intended to shield members. But that is certainly not evidence that members are actually engaging in illegal activity. Again, absence of evidence to the contrary is not the same as positive evidence. If you want to mention the disclaimer in the article, I support that 100%.

Finally, I'd like to address your concerns about the nature of the Copwatch network. At the recent Copwatch conference in July 2007, it was agreed that Copwatch groups would continue to function as a network of organizations with similar goals rather than a centralized organizing body with unified policies. Therefore, since there is no centralized organizing body, there can be no central unified policies. The conference was written about in Issue #26 of Left Turn magazine. Since the text is not available online, I'll reproduce the relevant portion here:

"A movement. A network. Not a national organization.... The national network created at the conference was meant only to support the work of local community organizing; it is not a national headquarters or national organization creating a top-down model of organizing. Each community has its own specific needs and resources to best organize itself. The network will serve only as a way to share strategy, experience and create discussion around this decentralized movement known as Copwatch." Mycota 20:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

First, to Murder, I'm not arguing in favor of restoring anything Diva has ever written, nor using Copwatch.com as a source for claims about local Copwatch groups, nor doing original research to establish in this article that the local orgs are related to the website.

To Mycota, I'm in agreement with everything you said in the first paragraph. Personally I think, given what I've seen, that there may be considerable cross-membership between the two groups. It even appears, outwardly, to be the central, national organization that is said not to exist. I would actually be happy to learn that literally none of the local orgs are involved with that website because I've found it to contain some pretty hateful and irrational commentary. Obiously, though, none of what I'm saying be suitable for Wiki except for the talk pages. At the same time, it's not really clear to me how to address the Copwatch.com website. While you are right that there is no direct evidence of any relationship, and seemingly an outright published statement would be necessary to assert one here, and, additionally, it seems that none of the local Copwatch websites seems to link to the Copwatch.com site, there still is circumstantial evidence (again, in my opinion) of crossover. At the same time, even if there is no association whatsoever, Copwatch.com seems to be notable in the same way and for the same reasons as the local copwatch orgs. But how do we handle it? Merely keep it in a separate section? Include an explicit claim that there is no relationship, even if we don't have a factual reference for that? Keep it in a separate section but say it is unclear whether they are related or have cross membership? Do we split it into a separate article? If so, would we make any mention of a possible relationship in either article, and how would the distinction be reflected on a disambiguation page?

As for the abiding-by comment, I can see how it would be tempting to phrase it that way, especially if it's true. I didn't actually mention it to challenge your integrity, but I think it highlights the confusion I'm talking about. I have no doubt that members or even entire chapters other than the one with the official policy DO actually abide by it, and many other shared policies. I also expect that members of different chapters correspond with each other to some extent, and they also seem to share tactics and political ideology. In that sense, you could view Copwatch as an institution that *does* have some universal policies and defining themes. Yet the organizations stress that this is not the case.

With Copwatch LA, I agree the disclaimer does not imply illegal activity, the same as desiring privacy does not imply having something to hide. Furthermore, a disclaimer is a reasonable measure for a potentially controversial site, but at the same time I think that unique position also brings a responsibility to aggressively discourage or even prohibit discussion which encourages illegal violence, even by participants who believe it is justified, and even when the speech may be legal insofar as it does not actually result in violence or criminality, because allowing or perhaps encouraging such discussion would tend to, sometimes, actually produce it, and also obstruct discussion of non-violent means. From that point of view, the phrasing "for educational purposes only" offends me in that it DOES seem to imply an intention to discuss illegal violence. I do not believe in violent political activism, not least because it is self-defeating. This is not to say that armed revolution is inherently wrong, but please remember that the difference between violent political activism and genuine revolutionary activity is how many millions of people agree with one's methods and goals.::::First, to Murder, I'm not arguing in favor of restoring anything Diva has ever written, nor using Copwatch.com as a source for claims about local Copwatch groups.

To Mycota, I'm in agreement with everything you said in the first paragraph. Personally I think, given what I've seen, that there may be considerable cross-membership between the two groups. It even appears, outwardly, to be the central, national organization that is said not to exist. I would actually be happy to learn that literally none of the local orgs are involved with that website because I've found it to contain some pretty hateful and irrational commentary. Obiously, though, none of what I'm saying be suitable for Wiki except for the talk pages. At the same time, it's not really clear to me how to address the Copwatch.com website. While you are right that there is no direct evidence of any relationship, and seemingly an outright published statement would be necessary to assert one here, and, additionally, it seems that none of the local Copwatch websites seems to link to the Copwatch.com site, there still is circumstantial evidence (again, in my opinion) of crossover. At the same time, even if there is no association whatsoever, Copwatch.com seems to be notable in the same way and for the same reasons as the local copwatch orgs. But how do we handle it? Merely keep it in a separate section? Include an explicit claim that there is no relationship, even if we don't have a factual reference? Keep it in a separate section but say it is unclear whether they are related or have cross membership? Do we split it into a separate article? If so, would we make any mention of a possible relationship, and how would the distinction be reflected on a disambiguation page?

As for the abiding-by comment, I can see how it would be tempting to phrase it that way, especially if it's true. I didn't actually mention it to challenge your integrity, but I think it highlights the confusion I'm talking about. I have no doubt that members or even entire chapters other than the one with the official policy DO actually abide by it, and many other shared policies. I also expect that members of different chapters correspond with each other to some extent, and they also seem to share tactics and political ideology. In that sense, you could view Copwatch as an institution that *does* have some universal policies and defining themes. Yet the organizations stress that this is not the case.

With Copwatch LA, I agree the disclaimer does not imply illegal activity, the same as desiring privacy does not imply having something to hide. Furthermore, a disclaimer is a reasonable measure for a potentially controversial site, but at the same time I think that unique position also brings a responsibility to aggressively discourage or even prohibit discussion which encourages illegal violence, even by participants who believe it is justified, and even when the speech may be legal insofar as it does not actually result in violence or criminality, because allowing or perhaps encouraging such discussion would tend to, sometimes, actually produce it, and also obstruct discussion of non-violent means. From that point of view, the phrasing "for educational purposes only" offends me in that it DOES seem to imply an intention to discuss illegal violence. I do not believe in violent political activism, not least because it is self-defeating. This is not to say that armed revolution is inherently wrong, but please remember that the difference between violent political activism and genuine revolutionary activity is how many millions of people agree with one's methods and goals.Factchecker atyourservice 22:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I actually think you've really crossed the line with discussing an article on a talk page, and discussing the subject, which is inappropriate. Talk pages are not for discussing the merit of an article's subject, only for discussing article content. It would be good if we could not clutter up this talk page with opinions about Copwatch tactics, and just stick to citeable, encyclopedic facts. Murderbike 14:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Er, ok. Your own conduct as an editor has not been entirely beyond reproach or without bias, and I would not have thought this discussion would be seen as counterproductive or inappropriate, but I'm not here to argue needlessly or violate standards of behavior. I will just keep quiet except when absolutely necessary.Factchecker atyourservice 17:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Copwatch.com

"and, in any case, the site has become nothing more than a forum to expound an anti-law enforcement proclivity where no law enforcement officer can be anything but bad, as evidenced by a recent post from a "moderator" on the site."

PLEASE NOTE: Such commentary is blatant original research. All ANALYSIS must be previously published by a reliable source.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me if I am not posting this correctly. The above statement about the copwatch.com website appears to be an opinion based on the POV of one moderator. Who is the moderator? And what is the 'recent post' being referenced? Shouldn't the POV of all moderators and the admin be taken into consideration before deciding whether a website is anti-law enforcement or not? In my opinion, most Copwatch groups are seen as anti-law enforcement by those outside their groups. So isn't a judgment call being made on the whole Copwatch.com website based on an unspecified moderator at that website? There is controversy at the Copwatch.net forum about whether the site bashes cops or holds them accountable as evidenced in the thread COPWATCH.com Forum > PUBLIC-OPINION POLLS > Do you think this website holds cops accountable? Or bashes cops? The current poll results with 144 votes shows that 47.2% of the voters think the website holds cops accountable, 24.3% think it bashes cops, 25.7 think it does both, and 2.8% are undecided. The thread itself contains 296 replies into the discussion of whether the website bashes cops or holds them accountable.--Polly Baker 100 (talk) 05:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Polly, if you re-read the above comment carefully, you'll notice that I am saying that it is inappropriate to add any material based exclusively on the experience of a Wikipedia editor, regardless of what the experience was. Looking at the article, you can see that there is no material based on that comment or any other Wikipedia editor's comment. However, the poll results you cite are also not really relevant except to show what percentage of Copwatch.com users feel that Copwatch.com treats cops fairly. And again, it does not appear that Copwatch.com has anything to do with local Copwatch activist groups, which is what this article is about. Copwatch.com, the website, does not seem to be notable for a Wikipedia entry, nor should material about Copwatch.com appear here. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what section to post this in as there appears to be 2 different discussions going on concerning Copwatch.com. However, this seems to be the more appropriate area since the section is titled Copwatch.com as opposed to the section titled Vandalism by DivaNtrainin. I believe the website Copwatch.com does deserve merit. I have observed the forums at Copwatch.net for some time now. It is a loose nit web based Copwatch organization, and definitely not a National organization. The Internet has allowed Copwatch stragedies (sp?) to evolve where Copwatch members don't need a physical brick and mortar address or even be associated with a particular city or region. Now members can come together to track police abuse from across the Nation and across the planet for that matter. The copwatch.com's mission statement is in the Copwatch forums FAQ & Rules as of 1/9/06 section of the forums. It states: fighting abusive law enforcement and governmental oppression wherever encountered - police, prosecutors, judges, bureaucrats, and politicians.

The forums at copwatch.com have made the local news in Ouachita Parish, Louisiana where a few cops were fired by former Sheriff Richard Fewell for allegedly posting on the Copwatch forums and outing one of there own. A handwritten confession by Detective Mike Rowlan appeared on the website where he confessed to drug use. The confession was apparently part of Rowlan's personnel file, but was widely circulated within the department. One of the fired officers, Todd Newton, was hired on by the Sterlington Police Chief Barry Bonner. All of the other fired officers were hired by Sheriff Royce Toney after former Sheriff Fewell retires and doesn't seek reelection. Details of the firings can be found in the Copwatch.com forums. Moreover, they can be independently verified by media outlets KNOE, Region 10 news, The News Star, and the Ouachita Citizen media outlets. Although the controversy surrounded the postings started by bowhunter38 on the Copwatch.com forums, they were actually on two other discussion boards prior to be posted on the Copwatch.com forums. All Internet links to the stories appear to be dead; although, the stories can still be found on some places of the Internet. A person would need to contact the various media outlets to confirm the stories.

Stories appearing in The News Star newspaper: Forum accusations result in undercover agent being identified by Stacy Temple, November 29, 2006 Web site IDs undercover agent by Stacy Temple, November 30, 2006 Remarks about OPSO swirl in Web, by Stacy Temple, December 1, 2006 Acts undercut law agencies, December 4, 2006 Fewell says deputy's firing is the first wave By Stacy Temple, December 14, 2006 Ouachita deputy fired over access to sensitive information By Elizabeth Fitch, December 14, 2006 Fewell fires first wave of bloggers by Stacy Temple, December 15, 2006 Officer fired in Sheriff's Department Internet case By Elizabeth Fitch, December 15, 2006 W. Monroe fires officer over role in Web campaign By Elizabeth Fitch, December 16, 2006 Fired officer speaks out about OPSO allegations By Stacy Temple, December 16, 2006 Officer responds to allegations by Stacy Temp, December 17, 2006 Sheriff's SCAT team temporarily disbanded By Elizabeth Fitch, December 18, 2006 SCAT on ice through holidays By Elizabeth Fitch, December 19, 2006 Sterlington hires fired West Monroe policeman by Stacy Temple, December 19, 2006 Sterlington hires officer fired over blogging scandal by Stacy Temple, December 20, 2006 Former OPSO employee accused of being 'corruption' ringleader, by Stacy Temple, December 22, 2006 Fewell names final figure in scandal by Stacy Temple, December 23, 2006 Police chief defends decision by Chief Barry Bonner, December 23, 2006 Deputy responds to Fewell comments by Gene Caviness, December 28, 2006 OPSO denies Sterlington use of ID system By Robbie Evans and Stacy Temple, December 30, 2006 Proceeding to begin against OPSO By Elizabeth Fitch, January 10, 2007 Thinkstream termination evokes legal action, January 11, 2007 Sterlington attorney negotiating with sheriff over Thinkstream use By Elizabeth Fitch January 17, 2007 Sterlington, Fewell discuss ThinkStream By Elizabeth Fitch January 18, 2007 Sterlington files temporary restraining order against OPSO By Robbie Evans January 19, 2007 Hearing set Feb. 7 in Sterlington filing against OPSO By Robbie Evans January 19, 2007 Hearing set in filing against OPSO By Robbie Evans January 20, 2007 Metro agent files suit against alleged Web posters By Elizabeth Fitch January 25, 2007 Rowlan files lawsuit against Internet posters By Elizabeth Fitch January 25, 2007 Lawsuit cites 'intentional' actions, defamation by co-workers By Elizabeth Fitch January 26, 2007 Sheriff, Sterlington police department to resume negotiations By Elizabeth Fitch January 30, 2007 Sterlington drops suit against sheriff's office, cuts deal with Farmerville By Elizabeth Fitch January 30, 2007 Sterlington drops Fewell lawsuit By Elizabeth Fitch January 31, 2007 Doh! Sterlington police blocked again By Sharryn Harvey January 31, 2007 Farmerville mayor: Decision to deny Sterlington police use of criminal database 'not personal' By Sharryn Harvey, February 2, 2007 Sterlington's deadline is today: What's a police department to do? By Elizabeth Fitch February 11, 2007 Sterlington denied database By Elizabeth Fitch February 12, 2007 Sterlington police find way to access criminal database By Sharryn Harvey February 13, 2007 Sterlington looks to state for NCIC By Sharryn Harvey February 14, 2007 We can't serve the public without unity by Chief Barry Bonner February 14, 2007 Chief deputy retires from Ouachita Parish Sheriff's Office By Elizabeth Fitch February 15, 2007 Ouachita chief deputy resigns By Elizabeth Fitch February 16, 2007 Copwatch charges lack solid proof By Johnny Gunter and Shirley Temple Originally published February 18, 2007 Fewell ready to hang 'em up By Elizabeth Fitch February 25, 2007 For Fewell, genuine thanks, April 29, 2007 Incoming sheriff says he'll rehire figures in Internet scandal By Elizabeth Fitch June 15, 2008 Ouachita sheriff returns full access to Sterlington lawmen By Laura Johnson, July 29, 2008 Ouachita Citizen Newspaper: Investigations Continue In Release Of Deputy's Identity, Thursday, December 7th, 2006 Fewell won't seek re-election; Toney campaign gets sheriff's support, Thursday, April 26th, 2007

KNOE TV8 News Stories: State Police Investigate Posting of Metro Narcotics Agent's Identity on Web, (December - 1 - 2006) 12/04/2006: "SCATTERSHOT ANOMOSITY GETS NASTY; Public Release of Agent's DVM Personal Info May Be Criminal." by Ken Woods 12/06/2006: "PALL HANGS OVER LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT, GOVERNMENT" by Ken Woods Ouachita Sheriff Fires Deputy Over Internet Exposure of Undercover Narcotics Officer Ouachita Parish Sheriffs Deputy Fired For His Alleged Involvement In Internet Scandal, (December - 14 - 2006) Ouachita's Sheriff Disbands S.C.A.T. Team Sheriff Fewell Responds To Decision To Disband S.C.A.T., Melissa Clark reporting (December - 18 - 2006) Sterlington Police Hire Fired West Monroe Police Officer (December - 19 - 2006) Ouachita's Sheriff Identifies Alleged Posters Said Responsible for Exposing Undercover Narcotics Agent Sheriff Fewell Releases Findings Of Internal Investigation, Melissa Clark TV8 news reporting (December - 22 - 2006) Sterlington Police Get Booted From Ouachita Sheriff's Database, (December - 29 - 2006) Former S.C.A.T. Commander Demoted then Resigns, (January - 8 - 2007) Sterlington Town Council Voting Tonight To Sue Sheriff Richard Fewell Sterlington Town Council To File Suit Against Sheriff Richard Fewell (January - 9 - 2007) Sterlington Requests Injunction Against Ouachita Sheriff Police Brotherhood Tainted By CopWatch Website: How It Affects Taxpayers (January - 25 - 2007) Sterlington Police Chief Barry Bonner Says State Police Grant Access To NCIC Sterlington Police: Working Without Backup (February - 12 - 2007) Ouachita Sheriff's Chief Deputy Joe Davis Retires Chief Deputy Retires from OPSO (February - 15 - 2007) Sheriff Fewell Speaks About Chief's Abrupt Retirement (February - 16 - 2007) Sheriff Richard Fewell Ready to Retire, April 24 2007

Region 10 and NBC10 TV news stories Internet Poster Blows Undercover Officer's Cover., Thursday, November 30th Sheriff's Deputy Fired, Thursday, December 14th WMPD fires an officer, Tuesday, December 19th Sterlington Police Department hires former W.M. police officer, Wednesday, December 20th Sheriff Fewell Holds Press Conference, Saturday, December 23, 2006 Man Called Ringleader of Scandal Speaks Out, Wednesday, December 27th Sterlington Police Department Are On Thier Own, Friday, December 29th Impact of Sterlington Losing Thinkstream Access, Wednesday, January 10th How Sterlington Residents Feel About New Officers, Wednesday, January 10th Copwatch Lawsuit Filed, Friday, January 26th Sterlington Police Department, Wednesday, January 31st Ouachita Parish chief deputy resigns, Thursday, February 15th

Indymedia sources: Ouachita Parish Sheriff's Office and Metro Narcotics Illegally Detains Photojournalist by Keith Skinner, 19 Feb 2007

As you can see from the headlines, the Copwatch.com website did create a scandal in Ouachita Parish when posters exposed corruption within the parish. The scandal certainly is notable, and should be included in Wikipedia either has it's own section on the copwatch page, or a page devoted to the website. Moreover, the website has a growing list of more than 15,000 criminal cops with over 2,500 of them sexually deviant. Most of the postings of the sexually deviant law enforcement officers are of sexual abuse of children. The numbers are hard to ignore while the methodologies may be controversial. I will do more research on finding which boards the Ouachita Parish postings started on before ending up on the CopWatch.com website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polly Baker 100 (talk --Polly Baker 100 (talk) 20:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Somebody's bot failed to close the previous "small" tag. No clue why.

Polly, much of your above commentary consists of WP:Original Research and cannot be used in any Wikipedia article. While it's certainly possible that the published news articles you refer to could form the basis for an article about Copwatch.com, currently there is no such article, and this article is about an apparently unrelated network of local activist groups. I don't think it's appropriate to lump material about the website into this article, as I think this would confuse readers and imply a connection between the website and activist groups, when none has yet been demonstrated.

Going forward, please see the Five Pillars of Wikipedia (WP:5P), with specific attention to "Neutral point of view" (WP:NPOV), "Verifiability" (WP:Verifiability), and "No original research" (WP:NOR) And good luck! Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Officer.com and Tim Dees

Shouldn't any reference to Tim Dees and Officer.com be removed as a non-neutral and biased source in violation of Wikipedia policy? Tim Dees is the Editor-in-Chief at the pro law enforcement website Officer.com. The reference "^ Tim Dees. "Cop Watch". officer.com. http://www.officer.com/interactive/2006/11/17/copwatch/. Retrieved on 2008-11-27" is actually a link to an editorial by Tim Dees, and not from a publication or journal. Anything references from or to Officer.com would be biased. The extent of Officer.com's bias can be seen in their forums with this statement, "These Are Private Forums for Law Enforcement. We Reserve the Right to Remove Non-LEO Members, Anti-LE or Inappropriate Posts and Users Without Warning." So I think anything posted on the Officer.com website would be biased towards law enforcement. Moreover, shouldn't Wikipedia use sources for criticism from trusted sources such as publications and journals?--Polly Baker 100 (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Polly. I think that in a nutshell, the answer is No. First, Wikipedia requires articles, not sources, to have a neutral point of view; and we don't make any explicit presumption that "this or that source is probably going to be biased against the subject of this article so we won't include any mention of it". Second, NPOV requires that all notable and properly sourced POVs be represented, not that only the most positive views are included in the article. If you can find a source rebutting the Dees editorial, that can easily be cited. Third, the author of the opinion is clearly identified in the text, and so the article says that "Tim Dees says this..", not "This is true because Tim Dees said so" or anything like it. Fourth, while it's true that academic publications, journals, etc, and mainstream news articles are typically the best secondary sources, they are not always available -- "Copwatch" has not been the subject of much academic or journalistic discussion. It's my feeling that this critical editorial is an acceptable source for the subject. However, I am by no means an administrator or Wiki-champion who is a master of all the policies. If you feel strongly about this issue I would encourage you to raise the discussion over at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. There you will find a group of administrators who are both thoroughly versed in Wikipedia policy, and experienced in applying it in unusual or borderline situations.

Again, I think the reference should stay in this article, but I wish you the best of luck in making your case over at the RS/N. Hope this helps. And if you do start a discussion, please let me know by posting on my talk page so that I can state an opposing case. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Since when are the opinions of a "Tim Dees" considered a reputable source? He is not an expert on anything, he is the mere owner of a police apologist website that defends corrupt officers and officers arrested for crimes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.203.76 (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I come out in favour of including the comments by Tim Dees and officer.com in this article. When I took a look at the website officer.com today, it was obvious that this website is not a police apologist website or a fringe website. The website reprints articles from cnn.com, Associated Press, Reuters, and other news sources. The focus of the website isn't to discourage criticism but to spread news of events related to law enforcement such as policy changes, officer safety, and officers doing heroic deeds.

I found three articles on the website that are critical about the police on the July 20 2009 edition: "Woman Killed by Police Motorcycle in France"(originally published July 18), "California Officer Admits to Traffic Stop Sex Assault" (originally published July 17), and "Police Shoot and Kill Armed Man Near Capitol" (originally published July 15). The fact that the website publishes articles critical of the police demonstrates that this website meets Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources.--DivaNtrainin (talk) 12:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I looked over the Copwatch website and accompanying forums today and found that they have thousands of stories posted from CNN, MSN, MSNBC, Fox News etc. There are stories detailing police corruption and I found three articles praising the police for jobs well done (See Ouachita Parish, LA). By DivaNtrainin's own words posted above, this demonstrates that the Copwatch forums meets Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources. Therefore, anything found on the Copwatch.net website is hereby considered factual and reliable, right? Or does this "guideline only work one way, when it fits DivaNtrainin's biased agenda? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.203.76 (talk) 08:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

We aren't discussing the website www.Copwatch.com. We are discussing the website www.officer.com.The fact that one reliable source says one thing doesn't mean a Wikipedia article can't include an opposing view from another reliable source. Wikipedia's guidelines on neutral point of view for more information. I am reversing your edits because it is unsupported. If you want your edits to stand provide references or background either on the Wikipedia page or on the talk page. I am not the only one that has been reversing your edits. This is not my personal agenda --DivaNtrainin (talk) 12:10, 01 August 2009 (UTC)

"We aren't discussing the website www.Copwatch.com. We are discussing the website www.officer.com." - Quote from DivaNtrainin

Perhaps that discussion should be taken to an Officer.com wiki. They will gladly welcome your biased, twisted, one-sided agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.110.156 (talk) 02:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

"Biased, twisted, one-sided agenda"?? – your whole contribution to the article so far is to repeatedly insert statements about the "false claims" of "police apologist website Officer.com" ... the "hearsay evidence" of the cops..etc. In every way possible, your edits fail to live up to any semblance of the underlying goals or concrete policies of Wikipedia. I think you are already aware that it is all in violation of policy, but to put it bluntly, as long as this is your editing approach, none of your edits will survive 12 hours on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it's Diva or myself or another random editor who just stops by and notices what you have inserted. You need to make constructive arguments rooted in policy, and it goes without saying that everything must be sourced. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion has been noted, Fagchecker atyourservice. As long as you and your ilk (police apologists and supporters of police corruption) can repeatedly quote blatant lies by uninformed people like "Tim Dees" of Officer.com, I and others should be able to quote whomever we wish also. If "Officer.com" published it you consider it verifiable and factual - but if Copwatch published it it's not a credible source. Edits reflecting the truth may not survive your repeated vandalism and re-publication of lies, original research and agenda-driven propaganda reverts for more than 12 hours, but it's 12 hours that people can read the truth; and it's apparent the truth frightens you. 67.177.110.156 (talk) 04:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

IP 67, you are not even making the slightest attempt to act as a good-faith WP editor. This will be the last time I simply revert your edit or admonish you at Talk before seeking to block your IP or simply semi-protect the page. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

IP 67, it goes without saying that posting a bunch of inflammatory, name-calling BS on the Talk page is not what is meant by taking a dispute to talk. Your most recent comment complains of a "biased, one-sided agenda", but I wonder how you think it's not biased and one-sided to essentially call the other side evil liars. As I've said before, you're not even trying. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Officer.com and notability

I came to the talk page to bring up the question 'who is this Tim Dees guy and is he notable enough to have his opinion in an article?' but I see that's already been hotly debated here! I think it's worth restarting the discussion though. I'm hoping we can do it in a calm and civil way. IP 67, namecalling and edit warring are not acceptable. For transparency: I support copwatch. However, I think I can provide a nonbiased opinion here. We can agree that it's not appropriate to cite the opinion of some random guy from the internet in an article, right? So this guy would have to be notable or some kind of authority to be cited here, agreed? Or anyone could just start up a website, right? I'm not saying that officer.com is necessarily not notable, I'm just saying I haven't seen any evidence that it is so far, and I'm hoping people can offer supporting evidence. delldot ∇. 14:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Whichever we decide, I'd argue that we need a reliable source for "Dees notes that a Superior Court commissioner found the officers justified as Cardenas was actively resisting arrest" because it's fact not Dees' opinion. delldot ∇. 17:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Peacock words?

I'm not sure when this tag was placed or if the article has changed, but I'm not seeing what the tag is referring to. "Many" doesn't show up, there are a couple 'some's and 'most's, but they look pretty ok to me (well, not that those words are ever great to use just for precision and prose). The problem, I think, is that copwatch isn't an organization, it's a concept. Anyone can start a group and call it copwatch, so we're not going to find many reliable sources that say "all copwatch groups do this or that". Maybe we could go more into the history and approach it like "the original idea behind copwatch was this and that". I'd also recommend making that point, that it's not an organization or even really a network (because groups aren't really in touch) but more just an idea. If we can find a source for this. So I'm asking if we can remove the tag, and if we can make those additions. Thoughts? delldot ∇. 17:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Are there any objections to me removing this banner? If not I'm going to go ahead. If so please point out the sentences that are problematic. Thanks! delldot ∇. 20:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Effectiveness of Copwatch

I removed the quote "One member of Copwatch said, "[w]e prevent more abuse than we witness" because this is just one person's opinion. The news article that this quote is from isn't in relation to copwatch or the effectiveness of monitoring the police. It appears that this quote was added to the end of an article to add balance to the news piece that was being discussed.

I'm not against using opinion pieces as Wikipedia sources, however the opinion piece has to be well justified, well researched, and generally explain why the author has the opinion. This opinion piece is two lines long. That's not sufficient to be a reliable source.

For balance, I took a look at a few Copwatch websites (Berkerley, Chicago, Redwood) and I couldn't find any statement that even vaguely supports the belief that copwatch's activities prevent police brutality. In addition, I can't find any studies that have evaluated what methods really stop or prevent police brutality. If anyone finds either one of these, please post it and revert the editsDivaNtrainin (talk) 06:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I had just added it so there could be a reference for the idea that an aim of the monitoring is preventing abuse. It's fine that you removed it though, I had my own doubts about quoting some random person that claimed to be a copwatcher. Problem is, due to the nature of preventing something, you're never going to be able to come up with evidence that some activity prevented it. That is, if it never happened, how can we know it would have happened without copwatch? I think it would work to just find a source that says something like "copwatch seeks to prevent police abuse e.g. by monitoring and acting on it when it's found" or some such. But I've been researching and I've pretty much cashed out Google's supply of reliable sources as far as I can tell. delldot ∇. 07:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Delldot.

Loosely speaking, Copwatch is a network of organizations. This works in your favor. Otherwise, there's not really any ground for a wikipedia article about "Copwatch" rather than numerous non-notable (i.e. deletable) articles about "this group of activists" and "that group of activists".

Re: the sourcing of Tim Dees' claim that the subject of the video was resisting arrest. The actual claim in that article is "Unfortunately, the video clips only tell part of the story. According to LAPD Chief Bill Bratton, both suspects had actively resisted arrest and had continued to resist and be combative after they were apprehended." At one time I fact-checkeed this claim, looking at a court document or arrest report, and found that the claim was supported by whichever one of those documents it was. This is sort of "meta", since if the article is a reliable source, we don't bother fact checking it. The question you want to ask is whether the article is a reliable source. Personally I think it is at least as (and probably more) reliable than the sources of the Copwatch groups themselves. For instance, I found that it at least corresponded with the police report/court document I checked. Meanwhile, supporters of Copwatch seem (to me) likely to dispute that there is any credibility whatsoever in a police report. This is beyond the scope of Wikipedia and presents an interesting issue.

The most significant problem that I see with this article is the near-total lack of reliable sources on the subject. There is a news story or two, and that's it. The bulk of available sources are first-party Copwatch sources, which are allowed, but not by virtue of their "reliability", rather due to an exception to the "reliable sources" and "no self-published material" requirement which states that claims about groups/entities/whatever may be sourced to that group's own "self-published" sources insofar as they only assert claims about the group's own actions, statements, etc. Within the reasonable limits of Wikipedia, any such material would need to be qualified according to its source, e.g. "According to X, spokesman for Copwatch Orange County, [claim]..."

In my opinion, this is an odd situation largely due to the placement of "Copwatch" right on the fringe of "notability", i.e. fitness to have a Wikipedia article about it. Personally I do not think that "Copwatch" is notable, or even if it is, it is not, as you have said, really an organization, more of a general idea. But this is not really the sort of thing that has a Wikipedia article. At one time, I nominated the article for deletion based on lack of notability. There was objection. I was a novice at the time and so I can't really say whether it was a well-held objection, but I did not persist in the debate.

Going back, first, to the Tim Dees article and claim about "resisting arrest". You should contest the fitness of this article as a source by bringing it up at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. It may help to read WP:RS first in order to understand the background policies how to present your arguments. As a courtesy, please post on my talk page, and Diva's, if and when you do this.

Speaking to the "We prevent more abuse than we witness" statement. This is reliably sourced. It may be included in the article, with particular limitations, regardless of any accuracy of the statement itself or its impact on the overall accuracy of the article. If included, it should be explicitly sourced and the included text should attribute the Copwatch representative by name as well as the context of the incident. My opinion, which I assume DivaNTrainin shares, is that this quoted statement is complete bullshit. However, such judgments are completely immaterial on Wikipedia. But, to make this clear, it was not really OK that Diva removed it. It can stand, although you will need to pay exquisite attention to detail in how to reflect it, due to the fact that the statement itself is so controversial and therefore its inclusion is very likely to be disputed. Another lesson on the way Wikipedia operates: it is work... you should carefully re-word and re-include this statement yourself. I am not going to do it for you, although I will support your edit once you have made it, provided it is within the reasonable scope I have described. Just to clarify, though, in my opinion this statement was the only statement removed by Diva which was remotely stated in an accurate, source-faithful NPOV way. The rest was ripe for removal.

The book "The Visual Culture Reader" is a different story. It is neither self-published material by Copwatch, about Copwatch, nor a reliable-source news account. If you wish to include anything sourced to this book, you will have to establish that the author has some sort of credentials which establish him as an authority on the subject. I somewhat doubt he has any credibility or authority on the subject. As a start, he seems to be a "visual culture theorist". Expertise on this subject seems to grant him zero credibility over issues of law enforcement, criminal justice, etc. He also seems to have no special credibility as a reporter of fact. Generally, I would categorize him as an art teacher who has published a book. Learned though I am sure he is, publishing a book does not automatically make one a reliable source on whatever the hell one writes about.

One thing to avoid is edits like this which completely misrepresent the source. In this source, it is stated that a Copwatch representative claims that they stop police brutality. The source itself does not make that claim, that Copwatch stops police brutality. Rather, it carefully qualifies its language. This is a feature you will find is common among reliable sources that are careful not to print misleading statements. In particular, the article refers to "so-called police violence". The statement, as actually included by the editor, is a major distortion of the source. The closest thing to a factual representation of the source that would still convey the message that editor had wished to convey would be something along the lines of "A representative of Copwatch Chattanooga says that there is a problem with police brutality and that the organization is fighting against it." Do you see how this is an accurate reflection of the source, whereas the actual statement inserted by the editor ("Monitoring police activity on the streets is used as a tactic to fight police brutality.") injects broad assumptions not supported by the source?

Lastly, I would just like to make a more general point to try to connect with you at a personal level, since mutual respect and understanding are very important on Wikipedia. I do not deny that police brutality exists, nor that it is a serious problem. I am more in line with the statement quoted from the newspaper editorialist that's currently included in the article, complaining that Copwatch groups are prone to "inciting generalized anti-cop hysteria at the expense of informed criticism". Having reviewed the websites, news reports, etc, I feel that this analysis is accurate, and so I somehow doubt a more balanced treatment is to be had here on Wikipedia, except insofar as it might be made more critical of Copwatch groups. I do not think they are going to generate any coverage by reliable sources that is more positive than what's already out there.

I am very busy, so I will not be checking this page very often. I hope to come back at a future time and find that you have made several edits that I think are perfectly legitimate. Cheers. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 08:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's the text I used to support the claim that monitoring is a tactic to fight police brutality:

...a handful of citizens sat in on a meeting to discuss so-called police violence in the community. Leading the group's discussion is Loranzo Ervin. Ervin is the organizer with the Concerned Citizens of Justice, a group that tried to win this fight years ago.

"We can start this process but the answer is we got to get people in the street," says Ervin.

In the street to be on "cop watch".

So I didn't think it was a logical leap or an injection of assumptions. I'm reading what the article says here as 'the group wants to fight police brutality. They're using copwatch as a tactic to do that." The article's title is "Community Group Comes Together To Fight Police Brutality". But if I'm drawing a wrong conclusion here I'm willing to listen. As an aside, I didn't think it was a controversial claim that copwatch uses monitoring to combat police misconduct; that's kind of the whole point. But I think the misunderstanding here is about whether copwatch is a network or a concept. I assumed that 'network' would imply some connection or way of keeping in touch. As I understand it copwatch is like Food Not Bombs: there's no central authority, groups are completely autonomous and not necessarily in communication. Thus it makes more sense to me to have the article discuss the tactic of copwatching and the history of copwatch groups as covered in reliable sources. But if there are reliable sources saying it's a network, that's fine. I don't agree that either stance "works in [my] favor". I support copwatch but that doesn't mean that I want the article to be biased in either direction, or to exist if there aren't enough reliable sources to justify it (not that I think that's the case here). Not to assume the assumption of bad faith, perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you meant by my favor. I'm not going to take action with that reversion by Diva; I didn't really object to it because my edit wasn't that great. delldot ∇. 03:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Another long response; sorry.

The "logical leap" or lack thereof is highly dependent on how the inserted article text is phrased. The key observation is that it is the group members themselves that feel their tactics are reasonably calculated to reduce police brutality, and that there is brutality in the places they go to look for it. A highly exaggerated example to illustrate what I mean: if I follow you down the street taking pictures, I can say that I am "watching you to make sure you don't commit crimes". But this is a highly charged statement that seems to presuppose both (1) that you are a crime-prone person who would be committing crimes if not restrained, and (2) that following you around taking pictures will do anything whatsoever to stop you. The issue is, of course, complicated by the fact that police brutality is not a myth. But it can take on mythical proportions, in a sense, when people are simply following police around indiscriminately to "prevent them from committing brutality". Generally speaking it's a "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" problem.

So, dealing specifically with that point, you could source a claim to that article, strictly observing WP policies, so long as it was clear that it is that particular Copwatch member/group's belief that there is a serious problem of brutality in that area and that their methods are reasonable calculated to fight it. Meanwhile, simply saying "X says that Y is a tactic used to fight police brutality" simply assumes that both of these beliefs are true. Even if they are, they are only include-able on WP AS FACT if there is a reliable source saying so. The fact that the article headline implies this is not quite enough: note that the news article text itself is much more careful to clarify that it's the Copwatch members' beliefs that they are fighting brutality, as evidence by e.g. the language "so-called". Again, this is one hallmark of reliable sources... they are careful not to present somebody else's arguments as if they were fact. In a sense, WP editors are bound by the same obligations which newspapers observe in order to protect themselves from slander/libel claims. Generally, newspapers will only make outright statements of fact when they are sourced to strong, even bulletproof, authorities. Even with bulletproof authorities, they will often make it clear that it is the view of that particular authority which is being reported.

As for the "network or not a network problem", I recognize your point and it has been raised before by other sensible editors. My only relevant observation is that the sense of a "Copwatch brand" is what ties these groups together. It doesn't appear, on average, to hurt the "cause" of representing Copwatch groups positively, although I want to stress that such positive representation is not itself a goal of Wikipedia. While on the one hand, Copwatch groups in general might be made to look bad by association with specific groups which are less responsible, etc., at the same time, the presentation of the individual groups is bolstered by the existence of the other groups, the mere fact of their presence and shared goals. It's an ill-defined problem, and I guess my main response would be that if you have specific objections to referring to it as a network of groups (note that this need not imply any sort of leadership structure) then please say so.

I certainly was not implying that you were operating in bad faith. I don't spend my Saturday/Sunday nights writing 2000-word responses to people whom I think are operating in bad faith. I reserve these rambling speeches for those who I think share the goal of fairly representing their interests while still following the rules. Rather, I was referring to the particular viewpoint which I think you would like to be adequately expressed on WP. This is no small task. Good-faith editors with WP-project-faithful goals will inevitably find that WP policy presents strong limitations curtailing the representation of material which is amenable to differing interpretations. In a way this is because of the unique nature of WP. If this were a real encyclopedia, somewhere there would be someone with exectutive authority who would simply say "F it, this is the slant we are going to go with, too much work would be required to truly express the murky conflict of viewpoints present here, and we will not report on it until it is sorted out much more definitively". This is not WP; WP's goal is much more ambitious! Not so much to arrive at the Truth, but to accurately reflect What People Say about a subject. The policies do provide strong limitations, but they admit a much broader range of discussion than traditional encyclopedias.

I think the comparison to "food not bombs" is probably apt.. but as you can see, that "group" is also referred to as a "a loose-knit group of independent collectives". Such language would not be inappropriate for describing Copwatch. However, at the same time, there are sourcing issues which don't seem to be adequately addressed on the FNB article. This illustrates another perplexing feature of Wikipedia: material is supposed to be sourced, especially if it is likely to be disputed. Material on the FNB page is likely to be disputed (for example, it strikes me as somewhat contradictory for a group to protest war and apparently advocate revolution at the same time, though this is quite a deep philosophical issue). But, whether it is actually disputed by an editor who takes the time to do so is what will ultimately define the shape of the article. In particular, we would not even be having this conversation if I had not noticed this article years ago and felt that it presented the issue unfairly and in violation of WP policy. Likewise with respect to DivaNTrainin, although I think I am a little more thoughtful on the balance and policy issues. In the end, it seems to be an accident as to who happens to care about an article or not.

Again, to try to persuade you that I am not some monster who is insensitive to the problems targeted by these groups, I just want to say that my main disagreement is one of methods and message. I think that there are much more constructive (and less destructive) methods of achieving the same goals. The methods are overwhelmingly political. They may not be as dramatic, but they will yield better results even though the results may seem to be frustratingly inadequate to the "faithful". Meanwhile, the particular Copwatch approach seems to engender hostility towards police from the outset, immediately setting up an adversarial relationship. I wonder how this is expected to produce worthwhile results.

On a final and more concrete note, I think that you should not necessarily back away from working for the inclusion of the "we prevent more abuse than we witness" comment. Again, personally I would guess that the statement is inaccurate, but this is completely immaterial. If cited and attributed properly, it is well within the WP policies and guidelines. If you feel that it is on-message and strikes true, work for its inclusion. No one else will. WP is made of user activity, which means you have to do real work to build it up. It literally does not matter that reasonable people would disagree; that is the whole point of WP policy, particularly with respect to groups or people who are unlikely to receive favorable treatment in mainstream sources.

If you bothered to read all that, I have to raise my glass and say Cheers... Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 05:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries about the length of the responses, I appreciate you taking so much time to give thoughtful responses. However it's not necessary to spend so much time explaining Wikipedia to me; I've been an active editor for four years. I'm not going to fight the quote thing because if I'm going to fight something I want to have both my feet firmly on the ground, and the quote is from some random person so it's not that solid. I certainly don't think you're a monster or anything and I certainly didn't mean to give the impression that I do. Now that we've established where we're each at on the subject and disclosed our potential biases, let's avoid discussing our opinions of the subject of the article (and others) and stick to discussing the articles themselves.

I think my error with the sentence "Monitoring police activity on the streets is used as a tactic to fight police brutality" is that I left it ambiguous so that you and others read it as "Monitoring police activity on the streets is a useful tactic to fight a known problem of police brutality," while I assumed readers would read, "Monitoring police activity on the streets is used by copwatchers as a tactic to fight police brutality." And I assumed that it would be implied that the existence of police brutality was the perspective of copwatchers. I still think that some of this can be implied, e.g. I don't see a problem with the sentence "Copwatchers use monitoring police activity as a tactic to fight police brutality" (aside from the awkward prose!) without the need to qualify by saying "which they believe is a problem" or some such. I think that should be obvious from the context. About the network thing, I am saying that I do have an objection to referring to it as a network unless there's some reliable source that calls it that. 'Group' is problematic too because it implies connectedness even though it doesn't necessarily denote it. Maybe 'set'? That sounds awkward. I can't think of a good alternative, aside from my original suggestion of representing it as a concept rather than an organization, which would take some rewriting. Anyway, thanks again for taking the time to respond so thoughtfully. delldot ∇. 02:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The black bloc is similar to copwatch and Food Not Bombs in that anyone can start one and the groups don't necessarily have anything to do with each other. The Black bloc article has this to say: "As an ad hoc group, they share no universally common set of principles or beliefs..." I'm liking "group" because it's vague enough to still be technically correct. delldot ∇. 19:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

References

Removing refs

DivaNtrainin - What is the meaning of "This isn't a credibible reference."? Nicholas Mirzoeff's book has a statement that helps build the article. This is how we build articles here so I'm unsure why, especially with an article like this with so very few source, you'd want to remove one. Dawnseeker2000 22:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Dawnseeker2000: DivaNtrainin is a well-documented troll and wiki-vandal who repeatedly vandalizes this page. Her sole purpose on this page is to make sure nobody removes the lies or non-credible sources that she has inserted, and to prohibit anybody from expressing any truth or otherwise contributing to the page for the positive. She has previously stated "this is how the page has been for a long time and this is how it should stay", which is in direct contradiction to the purpose of Wikipedia. As long as the uneducated monkey/troll known as DivaNtrainin is allowed to repeatedly vandalize this page, it will never amount to anything but a source of misinformation and lies.68.46.214.171 (talk) 02:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, this is plain BS rhetoric. I strongly suspect you are the same user who persistently called me "Fagchecker", among other nonsense, under a different IP address. Learn policy and develop a sensible perspective on this debate, please. Good day. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 05:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

So here's the details for others to see. The book is: Nicholas Mirzoeff (2002). The Visual Culture Reader, 2nd edition. Routledge. p. 390. ISBN 0415252229. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

The text that the reference was eluding to is this:

The police are central agents in the surveillance system, so they are often the target of videoactivism. In Berkeley, California, for example, an organization called Copwatch uses video cameras and human eyes to monitor the police, particularly in their dealings with homeless people and African-Americans in the belief that watching the police behavior is the best way to prevent police brutality.

So this backs up and provides a source for what we can say in the article. Dawnseeker2000 23:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

That does not support "In some cases, police have been resistant to monitoring by copwatch activists". Even if the ref did mention one, we'd need reports of multiple (or secondary source reporting that this is a trend) rather than one-off occurrence to avoid WP:UNDUE. And need it to be specifically tied to Copwatch not just "police don't like when citizens monitor" in general). That makes it hard to find refs. That's why I think [1] isn't appropriate: it matches "cop watch" but in a generic sense (in particular, it's talking about a group with an entirely different name). DMacks (talk) 10:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It's true, the "some cases" thing is problematic, I knew it myself when I added it, which is why I didn't have a big objection to its removal. But I think the source is valid, or at least I haven't seen an argument about why it's not. So can we come to consensus abou tsomething that we could add from it (given there are so few sources that mention copwatch at all)? Maybe in a "History" section we can talk about Berkely copwatch, since it's the first one. @DMacks: the sentence I was using to support the "some cases" sentence was "the cops in Berkeley and the news crews in Rochester did all they could to prevent their actions being videoed". (p.390). But I still agree it's problematic and I have no objection to leaving it out. I think what Dawnseeker was saying it was supporting was the thing about watching = prevention. delldot ∇. 15:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Whoops, hadn't seen factchecker's argument about the cultural reader delldot ∇. 15:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

What kind of reference is needed?

I've continuously removed the "citation needed" edits that Gobonobo has been inserting into the criticism section because I am unclear as to what kind of reference Gobonobo is looking for. The paragraph pertaining to the Tim Dees editorial has a reference that links directly to the article online. The paragraph is a good representation of what is said in the editorial, so why do we need more references? What is Gobonobo looking for that isn't covered by the online article?

Now, when I recently opened up the Officer.com page, it seemed that the article opened up slowly. This could have been my connection or it could be the server that hosts Officer.com. Either way, the article is available for viewing and is a valid reference. DivaNtrainin (talk) 04:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I see it now. Sorry about that. Don't know how I missed that. Gobonobo ^{T C} 16:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Media coverage of Copwatch to add to article

If this is helpful, here are some links to media coverage of copwatch. Sorry, I don't have time to add anything these days.

• Copwatcher arrested in Tarpon Springs
• list of media coverage in Atlanta

Peace, delldot ∇. 04:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Grotesque vandalism

This article has been grotesquely vandalised, including an obscene background rendering the page illegible, and logos from Encyclopaedia Dramatica. I am unable to figure out how this vandalism was effected, or how to revert it. Would someone please do so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.173.144 (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Very weak citation

There was a poorly sourced statement in the Criticism section "Critics argue that the group has displayed signs of an anti-police agenda." Copwatch is a controversial organization and the statement is most likely true (You my even find some of the membersof copwatch to agree with it) unfortunately the article cited is very weak as an argument to this effect. Anyone who reads it will see that. I feel a either a better citation should be found or the line should be dropped. (as it does not add any information not found in the next paragraph) --Paul the less (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

To avoid a revert war I expanded the text to fit the cited source I hope this works as a compromise. --Paul the less (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

looks great --Paul the less (talk) 23:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

References

Letters to the Editor

Why are we citing the opinion of a non-notable person in a letter to a free weekly newspaper? I've never seen anything similar in other articles. The closest thing would be very notable people who've written LTEs on areas of their expertise, but even that is very rare.   Will Beback  talk  06:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

"Tim Dees, administrator of Officer.com," qualifies as a self-published source and should also be removed.   Will Beback  talk  07:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The issue of whether to include the editorial by Tim Dees has already been discussed in this talk page with greater detail under the sections "Officer.com and Tim Dees" and "Officer.com and notability". If you want to open the debate, I suggest you add to those sections and bring points that haven't been already discussed. Since this has already been discussed in detail, please don't remove the section until others have had to comment.DivaNtrainin (talk) 03:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I see editors giving opinions. But Wikipedia policies need to be followed unless there's a very good reason. I've started a fresh thread here. Please explain why these two sources, the editorial written by an administrator, and the two unsigned LTEs, should be used even though never qualify as a reliable source. The burden of proof is on whoever wants to add (or in this case, re-add)) the material.   Will Beback  talk  04:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I am going to copy some of the points already raised by Factchecker At Your Service: "First, Wikipedia requires articles, not sources, to have a neutral point of view; and we don't make any explicit presumption that "this or that source is probably going to be biased against the subject of this article so we won't include any mention of it". Second, NPOV requires that all notable and properly sourced POVs be represented, not that only the most positive views are included in the article. If you can find a source rebutting the Dees editorial, that can easily be cited. Third, the author of the opinion is clearly identified in the text, and so the article says that "Tim Dees says this..", not "This is true because Tim Dees said so" or anything like it. Fourth, while it's true that academic publications, journals, etc, and mainstream news articles are typically the best secondary sources, they are not always available -- "Copwatch" has not been the subject of much academic or journalistic discussion. It's my feeling that this critical editorial is an acceptable source for the subject". I would like to emphasize that simply saying that an author is non-notable person or saying this is an editorial doesn't mean that it does not meet Wikipedia's policies. I would suggest you review Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources.

First, this discussion has nothing to do with how neutral Miller's opinion is. Second, according to whom is the opinion of Tim Dees notable?Third, identifying a non-notable, non-expert persona as having an opinion doesn't change the underlying issue. This is little different from saying, "John Doe, who blogs at DoeSays, says that in his opinion..." Fourth, we don't pick the best available sources, even if they fail to meet standards. Instead, we pick the best sources which do meet the standards. This editorial does not meet the standards. Fifth, please cite which part of the WP:IRS do you feel covers this source? Sixth, I don't see any explanation here about the LTEs. Why did you restore those?   Will Beback  talk  05:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't really say anything to counter your objections except to say that I've always thought this article presented some difficult sourcing questions, since so much seems to have been said on this subject, yet so little of that comes from RS's. Regarding the LTEs, I didn't see that as a problem due to the direct counterpoint LTE by the copwatch member, but I can see that at best this would be at the very margins of the kinds of things we put on WP.

The Dees source was discussed extensively, and I could have sworn that it was debated at RSN, but looking back through my edit history I don't see any such discussion. I certainly thought of him as an expert, at least insofar as anyone is an "expert" on the type of conduct that's referred to as copwatching.

Incidentally, the sentence you tagged FV was just an inadvertent mistake, wherein I was adding that material but apparently cited the wrong source.. I've now found the correct source and removed the tag. Centrify (talk) (contribs) 20:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC) (previously editing as FCAYS)

I certainly agree that some topics are hard to find good sources for. That's why the notability guideline mandates that there need to be good sources available before we write an article. We should also look at what NPOV really says. It does not say, as some might imagine, that Wikipedia articles need to present a neutral account of a topic. We write about horrible crimes without trying to justify them. Rather, NPOV says that we present significant points of view in a neutral fashion, without endorsing or dismissing them, in proportion to their appearance in reliable sources. So if 20 source condemn a crime and 1 defends it, we do not devote equal space to both points of view nor do we denigrate the minority point of view (if still significant). Instead we'd spend most of the space describing the negative point of view but also acknowledge the positive POV. It's not easy.

As for the LTEs, the fact that they balance each other has no bearing on their suitability as sources. LTEs have rarely been discussed on RSN, perhaps because editors realize they are so far out of the realm of reliability. Most of the few discussions concern known or presumed experts writing to peer-reviewed journals. This is the only recent thread I can find on general LTEs: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_54#Letters to the editor. I just don't see any basis for including these.

As for the Dees editorial/blog, there are several elements to consider. I categorized it as a "self-published source", but I may have been mistaken in that regard because the website actually belongs to a media company (even though the blog page uses WordPress software, a mainstay of self-published blogs). However it's not clear that there was any editorial oversight over the blog. In the past, an article by the editor-in-chief of a small newspaper was considered to be SPS because there was no one higher than him to review it. Another interesting fact is that all of his postings have been deleted from the website. I don't know what to make of that, if anything: it may be just overzealous archiving. Editorials may be cited for opinions, but are not considered as suitable sources for facts. WP:NEWSORG. The material we had in the article asserted a number of facts. If we could rewrite it to simply give his opinion, for example just the first sentence of our material, then that would probably pass muster.

Thanks for finding the right source for the squad car cameras. It supports the assertion.   Will Beback  talk  21:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Appreciate the comments. I think that a big part of what you are saying is that many sourcing problems have no easy answers, and if that is what you mean, I have to agree. I'll give some thought to whether the Dees source merits a salvage attempt sometime in the future; in the meantime, this is a fairly obscure article and I don't think it will really disserve anyone to simply leave it in its current state, with all the sources you noted as questionable removed. Centrify (talk) (contribs) 21:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

On further review, Tim Dees is a frequent writer and editor on police-related issues, and he is more or less an expert. I'll go ahead and restore the sentence of material giving his opinion.   Will Beback  talk  08:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Copwatch. 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/20080907125425/http://www.phoenixcopwatch.org/about.html to http://phoenixcopwatch.org/about.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 07:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)