Talk:Copwatch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Copwatch is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject. Please Join, Create, and Assess. Remember, the project aims for no vandalism and no conflict, if an article needs attention regarding vandalism or breaches of wikiquette, please add it to the article watch list.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents 1 What the...?! 2 Articles for Deletion debate 3 Changed Forums and Database 4 Perspective 5 Removed NPOV statement from "Methods" 6 Retagging with POV-check 7 Unbiased view needed 8 Removed paragraph from intro 9 By ignoring alterior motives, the entire article becomes propaganda

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. Canæn 07:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)