Talk:Contagious shooting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 27 November 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

[edit] Ghits for "contagious shooting" in quotation marks

    • What'a a "Ghit"? --Daysleeper47 23:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

A Google hit! The day I created the article there were just 27 references to this phrase. Now there are 150,000.

[edit] NPOV?

I just added a POV warning because the "Incidents" section seems to me to make cops in general seem dangerous and it's pretty much the bulk of the article, but I'm not informed enough to add anything to balance that impression (e.g., a justification of what seems to be massive overreaction, or at least an explanation).–♥ «Charles A. L.» 19:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the tag, no judgments have been made, the term comes from the New York Times and all the incidents are reported in the media using the term "contagious shooting". If you think there is bias because there are only police shootings, see if you can find any military use for the term, or see what the equivalent is called in the military. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with removing the tag. As it stands right now, this article is barely above a dicdef, and it's not our job to redefine the term so it's less insulting to police officers. Natalie 20:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure it is, that's what "neutrality" means. I don't actually dispute the idea that cops are out-of-control maniacs, but I'm not sure Wikipedia should be taking that line.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 03:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Again, no judgments are made. Its a "just the facts, ma'am" article. You can ask for a vote for deletion if you want. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV #2

I dispute the neutrality and/or the existence of this article, because this term is pretty plainly a bullshit neologism created by various police departments to excuse the callous murders committed by their own members. The article basically admits as much by listing a bunch of cold-blooded murders by American cops excused, using this term, by PDs and collaborationist media which, mind you, always attribute the term to the police. --Tothebarricades 07:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

while i agree with most of what you say, the article itself is not pov. maybe go for an afd as a neologism? -- frymaster 21:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)