# Talk:On Patrol: Live

Should criticism like the one in this piece by the Albuquerque Journal Editorial Board be included in the critical response section? It's not exactly a traditional television review. – Recoil (talk) 16:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it could be useful. As suggested at WP:RS we just need to make sure its attributed to the author. Would fit in nicely with the first paragraph of the section (first paragraph discusses criticisms, second discusses strengths, so we have a neutral POV). TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:08, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I think the content also further compliments what Horton said well. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I've tried to write a paragraph, if you could look over it that would be appreciated. – Recoil (talk) 10:45, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for adding it! I'll read over it in the next day or two when I get a chance . TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:38, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I can't believe I even have to point this out. I removed a piece that was highly critical of Live PD - not On Patrol Live (!) - because it's written about Live PD. Beyond that, the section is titled "Critical response" and the piece was written before one episode of On Patrol Live ever aired. How can it be included in a section titled "critical response" when the show hadn't even aired?!?!? Andrew Englehart (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

This article discusses the series, from before its inception. The entirety of the background section includes information from before the first episode eve aired. This information can expand to the critical response section. The source in question discusses the logistics of a Live PD revival, which is what this article is about. The source was released on June 9, 2022, one day AFTER the revival was officially announced on June 8, 2022. This means the source is most definitely in response to the concept of a Live PD revival and falls within the scope of this article.
On a side note, I'm not sure why you have so much trouble following the simple instructions of WP:BRD. And I've reverted your dispute edits again until a consensus is reached here. Please do not revert again to your preferred version until we have reached a consensus. TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
The article is not "about" Live PD--it's about "the revival of Live PD". I don't really understand why you have a problem with that, Andrew Englehart. User:TheDoctorWho, given that this is a GA and we can be picky, you might could add that the article was published before the show started airing or something like that. No, Andrew Englehart, it may be a devastating critique, but it's fair to put that in here. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
I'd be fine with that, and I worked that into the paragraph. I'm always for compromises and collective writing, I just disagreed with the sources removal in its entirety. TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, and I understand. I read the article and fully support its inclusion here. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Firstly, no, the critique is entirely about Live PD. How on earth could the critique be about the "revival of Live PD" (that alone is an unsourced statement, but that's another story) when the article was published before On Patrol ever aired? How can it be critical "reception" when someone wrote a story before the show that the article is about ever aired? I'm not saying you can't put this somewhere else - maybe start a new section that deals with background and criticism of cop reality shows in general. But that piece, and especially the quote that is used, is absolutely not about the subject of this article. Andrew Englehart (talk) 23:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Completely agree with what you are saying. It is not a response and the source (The Guardian) is infamous for writing one-sided articles when police are involved. I would be fine if it were an actual review of On Patrol: Live, but it is not - therefore the section and the source should be removed. Including a source that is not about the topic at hand is not compromise. It is bias. Mpkossen (talk) 14:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
It's a response to the creation of the series. Once again, the title reads The revival of Live PD, this is the revival of Live PD. There aren't multiple revivals. The article as a whole covers the time period from what led to Live PD's cancellation up to present day, and anything related to said revival falls within the purview of this article, including that source. The WP:RSP mentions The Guardian and says "There is consensus that The Guardian is generally reliable. The Guardian's op-eds should be handled with WP:RSOPINION. Some editors believe The Guardian is biased or opinionated for politics." If you follow that link to RSOPINION, it takes you to Wikipedia's guidelines which states "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion." So not only does this source fall within the scope of the article, but it follows Wikipedia consensus on what is considered a reliable source and guidelines on how to handle opinion pieces. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
The Guardian as a source has been "stale". It's been five years since it's been discussed and The Guardian has taken a considerable swing to the left since. But even if it were to be considered biased, that still doesn't take away from the fact that it's not a critical reception. It's a response to a show that was revived. Those are two different things. The former would be akin to making statements about a politician's campaign. The latter would be commenting on their candidacy before their positions are even known. It's judging a book by it's cover. And it adds no value to the article, because it's not substantive.
If you were to write an article about concerns about policing shows, it may have a place there.
What I keep wondering, is why you seem set on including a clearly biased opinion piece that isn't even a response to the show? How does it improve the article? What information does it add? Mpkossen (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
If you believe the Guardian is stale because of it's possible bias since the last discussion, then that's issue you need to take up at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Even if it wasn't found to be reliable as a source of news in it's current state, it's possible that it would still pass WP:RSOPINION. MOS:TVRECEPTION reads "The reception information should include details such as critical reviews and analysis, audience viewership (ratings), any award nominations or wins, and any cultural impact." The argument could easily be made that this source is an analysis of the series influence on a cultural level, an opinion of which could easily be formed before anything ever aired, especially when it's in the form of a revival. Live PD was partially cancelled because of its lack of it's transparency, and in the development section we talk about it's supposed increase in transparency. This Guardian source discusses that quote from Abrams critically, and I included a sentence in this article. That's just one way it improves the article.
I'm curious as to why you have yet to attempt to contribute constructively to this, and your only solution is to remove it. I understand that it is sometimes necessary, but that is not the case here. I have attempted to reach compromises by mentioning that it was a pre-broadcast response, and reached a partial compromise with Andrew by removing the quote that was previously included. I have attempted to reach a common consensus in the middle, yet you haven't. I am beginning to think that this discussion is reaching a stalemate and potentially needs a wider discussion. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)