Talk:Phoenix Police Department

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2021 and 15 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RussellTerrier.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Phoenix S.W.A.T.

Am curious as to why no mention of S.W.A.T.

Is "Phoenix S.W.A.T." not part of the Phoenix Police Department?

If so, what 'department' is it under?

Either way, I think there should be some mention of S.W.A.T. in this article; even if it's a reference to another article. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 09:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Phoenix doesn't have SWAT, they have a Special Assignments Unit which is called SAU. BTW, you can't say "Am" without using a pronoun of "I" before or after the "Am". Denise6908 (talk) 03:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

"Disproportionately targeting black people"

@Magnolia677: Having had a look over the sources, I'm not sure how you've reached the conclusion that they don't support this claim. You're right that the Fox 10 article says "There is not a particular race, age group, or part of the city that appears to be targeted the most.... There is no obvious trend when it comes to who Phoenix Police have shot or killed." – I assume this is what you're referring to when you say "one source cited disagrees". But the other two sources clearly say that black people have been disproportionately targeted: as mentioned in my edit summary, one says "The [police] shooting surge in Phoenix ... disproportionately affected black residents", while the the other says "Black and Native American people were disproportionately shot when compared with their population numbers in the city." Note also that the apparent disagreement in the Fox source isn't actually a disagreement, though it's not very clearly worded: saying that no group is targeted the most is not the same as saying that no group is targeted disproportionately. Finally, I'm not seeing anything in any of the sources "indicat[ing] this is due to racial crime rates", nor am I entirely sure what that means, though the AZCentral piece is very long and I may have missed something. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Being "affected" by something, and being--what was your choice of words--"targeted" by something, are not the same. "Affected" was the innocuous description used by one of the sources cited, while "targeted" is the bias description you...oooops...slipped in there. The sources clearly contradict each other, so cherry-picking one narrative, and then twisting its meaning to the point it no longer is even supported by the source you are citing, is disruptive and not tolerated on Wikipedia. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

So would you be okay with the sentence being restored as it was, with "affecting" replacing "targeting"? (Though "affecting" is a bit vague—lots of people are affected by a shooting other than the person shot—so maybe just "shooting" would be clearest.) I hadn't considered it a salient distinction, so I'm happy to use whichever. I don't think the sources substantially conflict with one another, for reasons outlined above which you haven't really addressed, so I'm struggling to understand your second sentence. (I was under the impression that this was a good-faith disagreement over content, though if you think I'm editing disruptively you're obviously free to raise that elsewhere.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with any edit that is balanced, relevant, and supported by the sources cited. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I've expanded your recent addition (sentence beginning "In 92 percent of the shootings") to more closely match the source. But I'm not sure the sentence is necessary – of the many data points in the three sources cited, what's the special significance of this one? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: re "please discuss", please see the above. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:58, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The paragraph is primarily data about shootings by the Phoenix police in 2018. Adding a significant piece of data about police shootings by the Phoenix police in 2018 is appropriate. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I understand that you think it's significant. I asked you why you think it's significant. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the claim. First, it doesn't seem significant, although I'm open to other evidence showing otherwise—e.g. can it be properly contextualized within the number of armed individuals the Phoenix Police Department deals with each year? What does the report that Fox10 says would be released in early 2019 say? Etc. Second, the percentage math is wrong. 35/41 is about 85%.

Also, Magnolia, re "oops" above: WP:AGF. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Commemorative coin celebrating a shooting

Per the cited source, this was a "commemorative" coin and it "celebrated" the shooting. Just saying "a coin" was created without clarifying its purpose and context is a violation of npov and inconsistent with the cited source.[1] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem with "commemorative" would be either, but I've added and linked challenge coin, per the source, for additional context, and made a few other changes. I agree with Magnolia677 that "glorified" is not quite encyclopaedic in this context. The question of "make"/"making America great again", where the source says both, is a bit more complex. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

By choosing to include a comment about the coin in this article, it is important to explain to readers exactly what was on the coin. "Good night left nut" and "making America great again one nut at a time" shows support for Trump, but also ridicules those on the left as being nuts. Is there any other was to express this to readers other than by paraphrasing the text on the coin? Was the coin commemorative, celebratory, filled with ridicule, jubilant, defiant, triumphal? Let's avoid loaded words, per MOS:WTW, and share the facts with readers. Let them form their own opinion without our narrative (or the narrative of some journalist). Magnolia677 (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Correct. A coin was created. To say it "celebrated" is erroneous. Furthermore, it was not "created" by his unit. It was created by an officer from a completely different detail. The "good night left nut" has zero to do with Trump and "making America great again one nut at a time" was in reference to the individual who came to the protest with a gas mask on, expecting to create anarchy and get away with it, thus referring to him as a nut. Denise6908 (talk) 03:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Capitalisation

It's a very minor issue, but should we be using "Phoenix Police Officer" or "Phoenix Police officer" (or, perhaps, "Phoenix police officer") in this article? I went with "Police officer" here, but I see that Ihiyotl has changed some of them back. My thinking was that "(police) officer" is a common noun, but one could also make the case that "Officer" is a rank like "Sergeant" and the like, and thus a proper noun. MOS:JOBTITLES may or may not apply. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)