Talk:Cincinnati Police Department

Untitled

Racial profiling - could someone who knows the topic clean this up? -- Tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.238.99.182 (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

The IP address "207.250.93.199" is registered to the city of Cincinnati. I'll be checking their edits for a conflict of interest. Until then, I'll be marking the article with a COI tag. OlYeller^Talktome 05:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

David Hebert

I added some information about this killing, [1] but it has been reverted. The reason given was that there was not sufficient evidence that it was a controversial killing. I believe this ref I just found [2] in addition to the others that were attached to to my edits, show that there is in fact a degree of controversy surrounding this shooting. It's my understanding that quite a few persons were going to speak to the city council at their meeting this evening, and it seems there are regular reports on this case every day in the press. However, I don't wish to edit war over it and I would like to hear what others think. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for an event regarding the police and something controversial that they have done to be covered for a short period of time on the news. There hasn't even been any indiciation that the officers did something wrong; only speculation. Unless this event results in an officer or officers being convicted of wrong-doing or some sort of policy change being made, I don't see how this is event has an importance comparable to the other topics in the section which discuss city-wide riots covered national (at least), proven racial profiling, and events where an officers actions resulted in criminal charges or department wide policy changes. It may seem important right now but I don't think it is in the long run unless it's proven that the officers actually did something wrong. OlYeller^Talktome 02:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

| military = No

but the category says yes?! --77.4.79.56 (talk) 12:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Consent decree

n 2001, Cincinnati was forced into a consent decree after a police shooting ignited three days of rioting. The city’s extraordinarily powerful police union was vociferous in its opposition to the decree, and the rancor between the Cincinnati PD and the court-appointed outside monitor became so pronounced that on at least one occasion the monitor was actually kicked out of police headquarters. It took seven years for Cincinnati cops to finally come into compliance. "Police Reform’s Best Tool: A Federal Consent Decree"

Is this the same department? I don't see any mention of the consent decree in the article. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:8DC4:BB80:568F:2021 (talk) 02:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Shooting of David Hebert

I am wondering if the citation to the "Friends of Bones" (www.friendsofbones.org/overview/) probably should be reconsidered and perhaps even removed per WP:BLPSOURCES. Just goping by it's name, there seems to be an obvious connection between Herbert and the website, and it does not seem to be a reliable source per WP:UGC. The information may be correct, but it would probably be better to find an independent secondary source to use instead. I'll leave it there for now while I look for another source, but the source and the first paragraph could probably be made a little more neutral sounding.

I also have some concerns about the middle paragraph where other claims are made against one of the officer's involved in the shooting. Again, this information may be true, but the connection to the Herbert shooting seem indirect at best since there's no real need to add it based upon the last paragraph. I think the middle paragraph should probably be dropped and only content directly related to the shooting probably needs to be there. If the section was more general about police improprieties, etc. then perhaps this would be relevant, but it's not. Moreover, the section is not really a mini-BLP about one particular officer so there's no real reason to list every bad thing he may have done just as there would be no reason to list every good thing he may have done. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I had similar views on this originally, but left some of it when I did the first rewrite of the section. I do think the sources make enough mention of the continuing controversy surrounding him as it relates to the lawsuit that having a very tightly written mention of it is perhaps warranted. That being said, we definitely need to make sure this isn't a WP:COATRACK. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110711080428/http://www.gcphs.com/history.html to http://www.gcphs.com/history.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)