Talk:Philadelphia Police Department

message: Some mention of the county of Philadelphia and the limited duties of the Sheriff's office should be made here. 209.92.136.131 22:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: County and Sheriff

message: ===Videotape of Beatings of Suspects===
How is this NPOV?  It is factual and provides balance to otherwise pro-Philly PD article.  It should not be deleted.--68.80.176.149 (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this incident worth a cited-mention, maybe.  But will this be considered a  "Notable event" in the history of the PPD in two months?  Doubtful, but maybe.   As a separate section it was WP:Undue Weight.  I will also note that other content was removed.   Mitico (talk) 02:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable Events

message: How is this NPOV?  It is factual and provides balance to otherwise pro-Philly PD article.  It should not be deleted.--68.80.176.149 (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this incident worth a cited-mention, maybe.  But will this be considered a  "Notable event" in the history of the PPD in two months?  Doubtful, but maybe.   As a separate section it was WP:Undue Weight.  I will also note that other content was removed.   Mitico (talk) 02:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Videotape of Beatings of Suspects

message: Any reason not to trim down some detail (specifically census stuff) & move "Call to Action: 10,000 Men" section to notable events section?  Mitico (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 10,000 Men

message: Probably worth mentioning that patrol cars of the 1950s (and possibly earlier periods) were painted red . A very noteworthy color scheme, in that it's historically associated with fire and danger services. knoodelhed (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Red squad cars

message: One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s).  Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. While federal government websites are generally public domain, this is not true of state and local governments, and the City of Philadelphia expressly reserves copyright for material on its websites here. For more information on verifying permission to use this text, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are. 
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: This is a rewrite of a section that was added to the article. Another editor deleted the original while I was reworking it, then undid my revision,
== Corruption and brutality ==

The Philadelphia police department to present day has a long history of brutality to the citizenry it is sworn to protect and serve. The department has had a large number of complaints of officers handcuffing suspects then beating them. A notable and nationwide event was after an officer, Sergeant Stephen Liczbinski, was murdered. In the aftermath, 9 officers pulled over 3 suspects who vaguely fit the suspect's description, handcuffed them, then beat them. Although the department fired two of the officers involved, the remaining officers were only reprimanded. To this day it is considered by many civil rights groups to be the most brutal police department in the United States. 
So, since the discussion page is where we go to resolve disputes, let me ask - does this need to be sourced before inclusion? WP:5 is, IMO, not too clear in this case. My thought is to allow these assertions to remain in the article, tagged per above, for a short period. Either the original editor, or someone else reading it, will be prompted to provide citations. If they remain uncited after a week (for example), remove them. Thoughts?
Vulture19 (talk) 05:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charges of brutality 

message: The Philadelphia Daily News coverage of the Philadelphia Narcotics Field Unit under Jeffrey Cujdik has won a Pulitzer (). Can the info be included now, as it seems WAY pertinent to this article? --78.34.98.253 (talk) 01:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Revisited

message: I am a fan of misconduct sections. But this one has gotten out of hand purely in terms of size. It needs to have sections by year and it ought to be made its own article. I ask for comments before I act on this. "Speak now or forever hold your peace," as they say. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 13:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia aims to provide neutral summaries of information reported in independent reliable sources. We should no more include "fair warning" to anyone based on your opinions re police conduct than we should warn them re my opinions of the difficulties I expect they'll have finding parking in Philly or the fat content of the massive number of cheesesteaks I believe they'll eat. Similarly, we don't include predictions of future events. - SummerPhDv2.0 00:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Misconduct Section

message: The omitted misconduct section is especially relevant to the upcoming Democratic Convention. The recurring accusations of massive election fraud will most likely lead to the kind of demonstrations and confrontations not seen since the 1968 Chicago convention. Here is a starting point for the kind of information that should be included as fair warning to the demonstrators: "Police misconduct in Philadelphia, by the numbers" https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2014/oct/20/philly-lawsuits/} Page Notes (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia aims to provide neutral summaries of information reported in independent reliable sources. We should no more include "fair warning" to anyone based on your opinions re police conduct than we should warn them re my opinions of the difficulties I expect they'll have finding parking in Philly or the fat content of the massive number of cheesesteaks I believe they'll eat. Similarly, we don't include predictions of future events. - SummerPhDv2.0 00:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevance of Misconduct

message: This section is a trivial list of occurrences. As the tag says, "Please reorganize this content to explain the subject's impact on popular culture rather than simply listing appearances." This section is essentially a list of books, films, etc. where the Philly PD appears. It does not -- in any way -- discuss or explain the PPD's impact on popular culture. Instead, it is a trivial list, mostly sourced to the occurrences themselves. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, I am afraid that I must agree that this section is fluff, as I have noted in a prior edit. However, the section is a simple list of PPD-related movies, books and television, not a true popular culture section whose entries should have profound meaning. I do not see the harm in leaving it as is.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It is pointless fluff. "(Whatever movie/book/TV show/play/comic strip/comic book/short story/radio ad/etc.) had a Philadelphia police officer in it" does not tell readers anything about the Philadelphia Police Department. Imagine the list we could have at President of the United States or Pacific Ocean. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your objections. Feel free to delete the whole section.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

text: On second thought, the section should remain but merely list reality shows, documentaries, and other nonfiction works. The fiction stuff is worthless fluff.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 13:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  In popular culture 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Philadelphia Police Department. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090115004913/http://www.kyw1060.com:80/Phila--to-Rebuild-Its-Mounted-Police-Unit/2623923 to http://www.kyw1060.com/Phila--to-Rebuild-Its-Mounted-Police-Unit/2623923
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This edit restores material I had previously removed as a WP:WEIGHT issue. This article is about the entire 150+ year history of the police department of one of the largest cities in the world. Recent allegations that a photo show a tattoo that is allegedly a Nazi symbol, with further allegations sourced only to "activists" in a questionable source does not merit its own section.
:
The original editor restored the issue without comment, directly contrary to WP:BRD. I had warned them for similar behavior on a similar issue in this article recently.
:
In addition to allotting too much of the article to one ill-defined recent issue, the edit is heavily biased, as was the case with the prior issue.
:
For the present issue, the edit in question again makes claims drawn from and expanding upon an unreliable source. Allegations by ambiguous "activists" are related as facts. Reliable sources on the incident make far less serious charges, casting considerable doubt on the allegations. 
:
Please note the officer in question is a living person. As such, WP:BLP applies. Do not restore the material until a consensus to do so has been demonstrated. - SummerPhDv2.0 16:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: *Your edits and reasoning are completely sound. I'll keep an eye as well. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged Neo-Nazi tattoo 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Philadelphia 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/20131004213850/http://www.17thppd.org/about/staff to http://www.17thppd.org/about/staff
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: has been asked several times by multiple editors to discuss the issues they have with this cluster of pages, including their strong preference to refer to the 1985 MOVE incident as the "1985 Cops from Hell Bombing." which, in addition to having unnecessary capitalization, stray punctuation and being non-descriptive, seems to have a decidedly heavy POV.
The incident from their summary seems to start with a bomb being dropped. While the group's prior involvement with the city/police certainly factors in, I would think the attempt to deliver arrest warrants, armed standoff and prolonged gun battle along with the ensuing fire would perhaps have something to do with the naming of the situation.
I have suggested "1985 MOVE confrontation". This title gives the name of the group involved, though "1985 MOVE confrontation with police" might be more accurate (though wordy). It also changes it from a random decision to drop a bomb to a "hostile meeting between opposing parties". I also chose "police" rather than "Cops from Hell" because "cops" is slang and there is no indication that the police involved are actually from the mythical Christian pit of fire. - SummerPhDv2.0 22:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV editing 

message: You cannot consider this information unreliable because you are not from the United States and you have no idea of its history, and you do not know these websites that know more than you, it has become clear.Juglar53</sup> 18:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Please try to stay logged-in when editing whenever possible, rather than sometimes editing anonymously, which can cause confusion. Thanks for discussing this at the talk page rather than edit warring. Your argument doesn't hold much weight, though: editors from around the world are encouraged to edit articles about U.S. topics (and Americans to edit articles about other topics), and there's no obvious reason why non-Americans would have trouble determining that "what-when-how.com" is less of a reliable source than a book by credentialled experts published by an established academic press. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pleased to see that the (sometimes) anonymous editor who's been trying to add an earlier date of establishment to the infobox has deigned to add that date alongside, rather than in place of, the later date, but it's still not acceptable in the absence of a reliable source—which "what-when-how.com" is definitely not. If they could explain their thinking here rather than continuing to restore the poorly-sourced claim without discussion, that would be appreciated. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's see

message: 100.34.29.36 has twice added the word "allegedly" to the sentence on this incident. While we do of course want to avoid seeming to accuse individuals of crimes of which they haven't been convicted, in this case it's very clear from the source cited that Bologna at no point denied having struck a protester, but rather acknowledged that he did so and argued that he was justified in doing so. While he only allegedly committed aggravated assault, he factually hit someone with a stick. I'd be interested to know what others think though. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joseph Bologna