Talk:New Westminster Police Department

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on New Westminster 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/20121109035940/http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=312b750a-50da-43d7-87eb-80eb6cb6e6b6 to http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=312b750a-50da-43d7-87eb-80eb6cb6e6b6
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308205340/http://www.news1130.com/news/local/more.jsp?content=20090227_200855_5436 to http://www.news1130.com/news/local/more.jsp?content=20090227_200855_5436
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: FYI - Editing on this page has been covered in the Delta Optimist.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing on this page reported in Delta Optimist

message: The "controversy" section seems pretty big given the size of the article.
Perhaps someone with access to a local public library can expand the article by adding more details about the department's history.  For example, HOW was the department affected by the Great Fire of 1898, the bank theft in 1911, etc.?
A section on current and past highly-visible police initiatives would be helpful, as would a brief list of any high-profile investigations that this department led.
Most of the details in the "controversy" section can probably be streamlined.  For example, the corresponding section in West Vancouver Police Department is smaller and less detailed, while keeping all of the references.  That said, the September 2019 incident with COI-editing of Wikipedia should stay.  As a side-note, I hope whoever it was from the department that ran that account understands the meaning of "Streissand effect".  If they didn't then, they should now.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it may be appropriate to mention this controversy, but I agree the weight is extremely undue.  The controversy currently makes up about half of the article.  Also we are supposed to avoid WP:CSECTIONs.  I think this section needs to be paired down, and information about other parts of the department's history, structure etc. need to be added.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

text: No, I don't think we do have consensus.  I do not agree with this edit removing all of the information.  I simply think it should be paired down, and other information about other aspects of the department's history should be ADDED to balance this content and ensure it is not given too much prominence.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 04:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , agree I've just reverted. Trimming is definitely appropriate. No one is in agreement that all the content get removed entirely Glen (talk) 05:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

text: I also disagree. It can be pared down, but not removed wholesale. I also don't trust anyone who seems to be astroturfing for User:NWPD media's desired edits.  —A little blue Bori v^_^v Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 05:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:AVOIDVICTIM and WP:BLP might also require us to remove the names/personal details of otherwise non-notable people.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
*Until the NWPD stuck their porky fingers in the pie, the incident warranted at most a sentence and an argument could have been made that it didn't need to be mentioned at all. Not anymore, since they've managed to make themselves the story . Good work, team! EEng 13:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:Undue weight]] for 2009 controversy