Talk:Barrie Police Service/Archive 1

Keep article
This article was up for deletion. The city of Barrie is one of the bigger and older cities in Canada and definitely deserves a page on its police service given its history. It is also a part of WikiProject_Law_Enforcement and thus should be kept. Spiral-architect 19:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The added material convices me that the article may be kept. So I will not pursue deleting this article. But note that the membership of any WikiProject is no reason whatsoever to keep an article. Articles have to be judged on their own encyclopedic value, not on such self-referential or circular claims. -- Pepve 20:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I tried to add some more information on the notable members, organization, and vehicles in order to round out this page. I will attempt to add more, especially more info about the Chief as he has quite the 40 year history as a police officer  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.232.141 (talk) 02:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BarriePoliceServiceCrest.gif
Image:BarriePoliceServiceCrest.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:SIULOGO.jpg
The image Image:SIULOGO.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --23:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Reversal of VANDALISM committed by 66.209.53.162
I have reverted the Barrie Police Service article to undo VANDALISM committed by 66.209.53.162 which included wholesale removal of entire sections of an otherwise well-balance article containing third-party references from trusted public sources including: The Toronto Star (one of Canada's largest newspapers); The National Post (Canada's national newspaper); and rulings of the Supreme Court of Canada (Canada's highest court).

The aforementioned vandalism committed by 66.209.53.162 was in direct violation of Wikipedia Rules and shall not be tolerated by the Wikipedia Community.

Jedidiah Leland (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

== Reversal of VANDALISM committed by 66.209.53.162 Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, but please do not delete entire sections without giving a proper justification. There may certainly be good reasons to remove entire sections from articles, but doing so requires justification. Valid reasons for blanking sections include (but are not limited to):
 * Violations of the Biographies of living people policy
 * Violations of the Neutrality policy
 * Violations of the No Original Research policy
 * Information that does not rely on Reliable sources

Please note that I don't like it is NOT a valid reason for removing information from Wikipedia.

You may cite your reasons in the edit summary, or in the article's talk page if you need more room than the edit summary affords.

Thanks again,

Samwb123T-C-E 23:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

==

A day aftering having to revert VANDALISM committed by 66.209.53.162, I have once again had to revert the Barrie Police Service article to undo VANDALISM committed by this same individual using Internet IP Address 66.209.53.162 Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, but please do not delete entire sections without giving a proper justification. There may certainly be good reasons to remove entire sections from articles, but doing so requires justification. Valid reasons for blanking sections include (but are not limited to):
 * Violations of the Biographies of living people policy
 * Violations of the Neutrality policy
 * Violations of the No Original Research policy
 * Information that does not rely on Reliable sources

Please note that I don't like it is NOT a valid reason for removing information from Wikipedia.

You may cite your reasons in the edit summary, or in the article's talk page if you need more room than the edit summary affords.

Thanks again,

Samwb123T-C-E 23:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

which included wholesale removal of entire sections of an otherwise well-balance article containing third-party references from trusted public sources including: The Toronto Star (one of Canada's largest newspapers); The National Post (Canada's national newspaper); and rulings of the Supreme Court of Canada (Canada's highest court).

The aforementioned vandalism committed by the individual using Internet IP Address 66.209.53.162 was in direct violation of Wikipedia Rules and shall not be tolerated by the Wikipedia Community.

ADMINISTRATOR: KINDLY BLOCK IP Address 66.209.53.162 from further editing of Wikipedia articles pursuant to the Wikipedia Rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedidiah Leland (talk • contribs) 01:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Jedidiah, the problem is that edits like this would possibly be seen as not being written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia ask that all edits are written without bias and backed up by reliable sources.  All articles must maintain a neutral point of view, this is something that is not negotiable and Wikipedia expects it from all editors and all articles.


 * "Achieving what Wikipedia understands as "neutrality" often means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of sources, and then attempting to convey the results to the reader clearly and accurately. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. There are few hard-and-fast rules for doing this—much depends on the good faith of editors, who should be striving to provide information, not promote a particular cause. However, observing the following principles, together with those of verifiability, will help to achieve the level of neutrality which is appropriate for an encyclopedia."


 * Whilst I understand that you didn't mean the edit like that, I suspect that is why it has been reverted. I suggest that you read Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy and I hope that you understand why Wikipedia is so strict with this.


 * Finally please don't type in caps as it's deemed as shouting at editors, and please don't demand that editors are blocked. The IP that you reported is actually newer than yourself and may still be learning the ropes of Wikipedia as they have only made a few edits.  Editors (whether IP or registered) will only be blocked if they commit vandalism. --5 albert square (talk) 02:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Allegations
I've reduced this to the two substantive matters. Question is - is this undue weight? What police force doesn't have the odd scandal? Fainites barley scribs 00:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and I have added full protection, as both established and anonymous editors are warring over certain data. Discuss here, and come to a consensus. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 20:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Good on the full protection. Looks like there may be a BLP vio in the protected version regarding the police chief though. Discussion anybody? Fainites barley scribs 20:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Says endemic racism, corruption, and criminal and police misconduct . It then referes to what appear to be 4 matters but are in fact 3. The first two have some sourcing. The last does not have a remotely adequate source. Altogther it does not add up to endemic racism, corruption, and criminal and police misconduct . Fainites barley scribs 20:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Any reasonable person who reads the article and follows and reads the unbiased, published references from reputable sources (The Toronto Star, National Post, The Court - Osgoode Hall, and The Supreme Court of Canada - Canada's highest court) will recognise the fact that where the article refers to 'a senior police inspector in charge of the Barrie Police Service Professional Standards Branch sending and forwarding racist 'joke' emails with the subject line "Afrocentric Math for Toronto's new black only school" to several officers and the force's street crimes unit' that this in and of itself constitutes 'endemic racism'. This is evinced by the fact that the perpetrating officer was a 'senior police inspector in charge of the Barrie Police Service Professional Standards Branch (therein lies the irony) who felt quite comfortable mass-emailing such reprehensibly racist material to several officers and to members of the force's street crimes unit. This in and of itself is an indication of how pervasive and endemic racism was within the Barrie Police Service.

As far as 'corruption, and criminal and police misconduct' - the article makes reference to and quotes (verbatim) The Toronto Star and National Post (Canada's national newspaper) newspaper articles which drew national attention to the scandal involving a Barrie Police Service constable who was charged and convicted of drug possession (with the intent to traffic) and theft of evidence from a Police evidence bag - which according to the aforementioned articles was first not disclosed to an accused citizen whom had been arrested by the very same officer who had been charged with and later convicted of drug possession and obstruction, and then subsequently where Barrie Police Service senior officials then took it upon themselves to refuse to physically hand over the evidence against the accused Barrie Police constable that might be used in defence of the accused citizen by the citizen's defence counsel. Hence the proper reference to behaviour involving 'corruption, and criminal and police misconduct' (i.e. the accused and convicted constable's criminal behaviour, his own misconduct as the aforementioned events ocurred while he was on duty, and the attempted obstruction by Barrie Police Service senior officials who initially attempted to cover up, and then refused to hand over the evidence that might be used to acquit the accused citizen). The reference to the SCOC (Supreme Court of Canada) - Canada's highest court, if followed and read provides the High Court's scathing condemnation of the misconduct of the Barrie Police Service senior officials in their attempted cover-up and refusal to hand over said evidence that was subsequently used to acquit the accused citizen.

At the end of the day, what we have here is the Barrie Police Service repeatedly attempting to section blank a balanced article which (unfortunately for the Barrie Police Service) provides a mere glimpse into its 'history' (both positive and negative). The Barrie Police Service's repeated attempts to section blank the article constitutes a major conflict of interest which should not be condoned by the Wikipedia community.

As far as the claim that the article somehow violates BLP (Biography - Living Person) policy, the article in no way attributes the actual misconduct of the perpetrators to the now former Chief of Police, but merely mentions that it ocurred while he was in command of the Barrie Police Service.

Jedidiah Leland (talk) 00:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well here was what I changed it too; Between 2008 and 2010, the Barrie Police Service was the subject of a number of misconduct allegations: a senior police inspector in charge of the Barrie Police Service Professional Standards Branch sending and forwarding racist 'joke' emails [2] to officers and the force's street crimes unit [3]; and an attempted obstruction of justice after senior Barrie Police Service officials initially failed to disclose and then subsequently refused to disclose the existence of criminal charges against one of their own constables including drug possession and trafficking, cocaine use while on duty, theft from an evidence bag, and obstruction of justice.[4][5]. This includes the two sourced incidents (the e-mail and the bent copper) which as far as I can ascertain from the sources were admitted/proved. The last allegation was just a complaint. Having reduced it to these issues, with sources, the question is one of weight. Is there anything about these allegations that are sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion? All police forces in democratic countries have regular scandals where bent coppers are unmasked and/or racist attitudes revealed. The important point is how these matters are dealt with. We had a big one on the UK where the asian officer who complained of racist material was stitched up as the perpetrator and suspended! Now that was a notable scandal because it was a couple of years before it was all put right.Fainites barley scribs 11:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I see your point regarding your desire to drop the last (i.e. police break-and-enter and assault of civilian while in their residence without warrant) incident, which, after conducting further research into the allegation, to my knowledge has not yet been proven in a court of law. However, as far as the first 2 incidents, namely:

1. the convicted, racist head of the 'Professional Standards Branch' (how ironic) who somehow felt so at ease within the auspices of the Barrie Police Service's established organisational 'culture' as to feel it appropriate to mass-email palpably criminally racist (i.e. 'hate speech' targeting an identifiable group of persons whether by race, religion or sexual orientation is a criminal offence in Canada) to officers across the Barrie Police Service (including members of the Street Crimes Unit); and

2. the criminally convicted cocaine-using and traficking (while on duty no less), thieving, lying and obstructing Barrie Police Service constable whose arrest and conviction record was subsequently covered up (i.e the 2nd count of 'obstruction of justice') by senior Barrie Police Service officials who, despite its subsequet revelation, had the audacity to refuse to hand over evidence of its exsistence (until that is they were forced to do so by the precedent-setting ruling of The Supreme Court of Canada);

more than sufficiently meets the 'weight' test in my opinion to warrant its inclusion as part of the 'history' of the Barrie Police Service.

While I understand and appreciate your concern regarding 'weight' - I must take issue with your characterisation of these adjudicated and proven (in The Supreme Court of Canada - Canada's highest court) historical events as mere 'allegations'. Their coverage by The Toronto Star (Canada's largest newspaper by circulation), the National Post (Canada's national newspaper), The Court - Osgoode Hall Law School's nationally-recognized authoritative publication on Canadian Law, not to mention the precedent-setting ruling by The Supreme Court of Canada - that police services in Canada must disclose the misconduct/criminal conviction records of their officers to an accused, drew national attention to the Barrie Police Service, its leadership, 'culture' and its members. In my humble opinion, therein lies the justification (and the need) for its inclusion in any public (unbiased) encyclopedic article about the Barrie Police Service. To do otherwise would be tantamount to absolute abdication of Wikipedia's role of providing free, public, unbiased reporting of facts that are of public interest.

Therefore, I respectfully request consensus that the revised section read: "While under the command of former Chief of Police Wayne C. Frechette, the Barrie Police Service was plagued by endemic racism, corruption, and criminal and police misconduct including: a senior police inspector in charge of the Barrie Police Service Professional Standards Branch sending and forwarding racist 'joke' emails [2] with the subject line "Afrocentric Math for Toronto's new black only school" to several officers and the force's street crimes unit [3]; attempted obstruction of justice after senior Barrie Police Service officials initially failed to disclose and then subsequently refused to disclose the existence of criminal charges against one of their own constables including drug possession and trafficking, cocaine use while on duty, theft (stealing money and phone cards from an evidence bag), and obstruction of justice [4], to an accused citizen who himself had been arrested and charged with a drug-related offence by the convicted Barrie Police Service constable [5]."

Respectfully submitted.

Jedidiah Leland (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I take your point about the word "allegations" when it's been proven. However, I still think endemic is too strong for two incidents - serious though they individually are. Fainites barley scribs 20:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank-you for conceding to my point regarding your use of the word "allegations". I used the word "endemic" for good reason. One meaning of the word "endemic" is "prevalent". Any reasonable person questioning my use of the word "endemic" (prevalent) in my contribution to the Barrie Police Service article should ask themselves the following question: 'Why did the Head of the Barrie Police Service Professional Standards Branch feel so comfortable in mass-emailing a criminal, racist email denigrating blacks (aka African Americans) - sending this reprehensible material to members of the Barrie Police Service including members of the Street Crimes Unit?' Could it be that he thought that it was 'acceptable' and would not be seen as 'wrong'? Any reasonable person questioning my use of the same word "endemic" (prevalent) as to describe the extent of the misconduct and corruption within the ranks of the Barrie Police Service should ask themselves the following question: 'Why, after realising that they had a 'bad cop' within their ranks, did senior Barrie Police Service officials: 1) attempt to cover up; and then subsequently when caught; 2) refuse to hand over disclosure material that would have revealed said 'bad cop' as an individual who was charged and convicted of obstruction, drug use and drug trafficking (while on duty), and theft of money and phone cards from a police evidence bag - all of which could have been used by Defense Counsel to seek an acquittal of an accused citizen whom said 'bad cop' had (subsequent to his own arrest and conviction on obstruction, drug use/trafficking and theft charges) arrested on drug-related charges?' The answer is: 'A force where said corruption is so 'prevalent' (or "endemic") where such corruption may be permitted to take place unchallenged from within - one where there is more interest in 'protecting their own - even when 'their own' are criminals, and where such corruption may only take place by virtue of the fact that said corruption extends to the highest levels of the Barrie Police Service.'  In other words, it wasn't a 'cleaning lady' who decided to send out criminally racist 'hate mail' or cover-up the fact that one of their constables was a convicted cocaine-using/dealing thief, but individuals at the highest levels within the Barrie Police Service. Hence, my use of the word "endemic", where, under the circumstances, the 'shoe fits'.

Respectfully submitted.

Jedidiah Leland (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)