Talk:Chicago Police Department

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Chicago 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:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/burge.settlement.council.2.626215.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081023011031/http://www.suntimes.com:80/news/politics/365163,CST-NWS-ops01.article to http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/365163,CST-NWS-ops01.article
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090411122436/http://cbs2chicago.com:80/local/special.operations.officers.2.932579.html to http://cbs2chicago.com/local/special.operations.officers.2.932579.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Chicago 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/20071117140833/http://edition.cnn.com:80/2007/LAW/05/16/police.beating.ap/ to http://edition.cnn.com/2007/LAW/05/16/police.beating.ap/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110708124713/http://cbs2chicago.com/local/police.corruption.case.2.1208809.html to http://cbs2chicago.com/local/police.corruption.case.2.1208809.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
 * 1) REDIRECT www.infisign.ai

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Haymarket?
Why is there no Haymarket Affair section under controversies and brutality? Victor Grigas (talk) 03:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Skullcap Crew
Is this in there? Skullcap Crew Victor Grigas (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Chicago 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/20150622053903/https://portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/portal/ClearPath/News/Statistical%20Reports/Annual%20Reports/10AR.pdf to https://portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/portal/ClearPath/News/Statistical%20Reports/Annual%20Reports/10AR.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402135618/https://portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/portal/ClearPath/About%20CPD/History to https://portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/portal/ClearPath/About%20CPD/History
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150622053903/https://portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/portal/ClearPath/News/Statistical%20Reports/Annual%20Reports/10AR.pdf to https://portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/portal/ClearPath/News/Statistical%20Reports/Annual%20Reports/10AR.pdf

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) 00:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chicago 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/20160819203529/http://www.xpresspress.com/news/JacksonCase_061308.html to http://www.xpresspress.com/news/JacksonCase_061308.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150301210414/http://chicagoist.com/2015/02/27/stories_continue_to_emerge_from_chi.php to http://chicagoist.com/2015/02/27/stories_continue_to_emerge_from_chi.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Flag of Chicago Police Department.png

Lead should not attribute the CPD's history of misconduct as "critics say"
The content is sourced to peer-reviewed research. The longest section in the article delineates endless scandals and episodes of misconduct. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see the need for that. It is critics, not everyone, that fixates on negative history. Regarding your cuts in general, what do you think an article on a major municipal police department should cover? Aside from (apparently) every single individual case of misconduct over centuries of history and tens of thousands of different officers over the course of that history, that is. Law enforcement is more than misconduct. We shouldn't be focusing only on one aspect. Crossroads -talk- 04:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Concerns about sweeping editing removing relevant information
I'm concerned about the massive number of changes which occurred on 15 April, 2021. I'm not questioning whether the changes were made in good faith, and I certainly agree removing citations to unreliable sources is a good thing. But all removal of references to the Chicago Police Board and the Civilian Office of Police Accountability is troubling, as these are two organizations which are inextricable from the Chicago Police Department. Even if the information is simply that they exist, that information absolutely should be included in this article. DTXBrian (talk) 02:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I restored this. Feel free to restore anything else that would be appropriate, or to add other reliably sourced material. Crossroads -talk- 04:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Police misconduct
Should the lead say that A. "Critics say the CPD has a has a history of police brutality and misconduct" (with attribution to "critics") or B. should it just plainly say "The CPD has a history of police brutality and misconduct" (without attribution to "critics"). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Sources for the history of misconduct:

Survey

 * B. The attribution is unnecessary and violates NPOV by casting doubt on the large number of peer-reviewed studies which document a history of misconduct (which includes literally running a torture squad), as well as a 2017 DOJ report which concluded that the "CPD had a history of civil rights violations by officers, including a "pattern and practice" of excessive force and abuse." This ultimately led to a consent decree requiring reforms of the department. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The citations above appear to be a WP:REFBOMB; it would be better to stick to a few and quote the conclusions, IMO. Lots of things have a negative history. The question that comes up on such articles is, how and when are such matters to be covered in the lead in accord with WP:DUE? Is it regarding a specific time period or portion of the department? I also think this RfC was started prematurely and there was more room for discussion. In any case, unless someone points out that this wording is too general, I propose we word it much as is done about the NYPD: "The CPD has a history of police brutality and misconduct, which critics argue persists to the present." Otherwise, it just looks like excessive focus on that aspect in a short lead in a POV manner. Yes, the DOJ report was recent (and it definitely spoke of the recent past there right?), but it isn't yet clear if the consent decree has improved matters. I also strongly believe that if this be covered in the lead, the lead should also be expanded overall, and the article could also benefit from addition of sourced material on other aspects of the topic besides misconduct, such as public opinion. Crossroads -talk- 05:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * B. Are police critics like film critics? Does anyone doubt this?VikingDrummer (talk) 05:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * A (invited by the bot) The statement can be defended as saying that such as occurred or too often.  But as commonly read it is a characterization of the entire police dept. which IMO is an overreach.      Because of that I think that if it is even in the article it should be attributed to critics.  North8000 (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Open to B, or to Crossroads proposal The existence of this history is definite. Don't have a strong feeling either way about how we say so. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * B or Crossroads proposal: The history is not really in dispute here, what's in dispute is whether it's gotten better or not. Loki (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Slight lean toward A, or use more explicit language - The reason I would have for favouring A over B would not be to cast any doubt on the facts in any way whatsoever; my only reservation about the language of B is that "brutality" and "misconduct", no matter what the case may be, are subjective terms, and I generally find it to be non-encyclopaedic in style to make subjective statements in Wikivoice as if they were fact (and a subjective statement is a subjective statement by its nature, even if no even halfway reasonable person could ever possibly disagree). With that said, I see no problem with, rather than saying "brutity and misconduct", saying what specific things they have a history of - e.g., murder, beating peaceful assemblers bloody with clubs, rape, fabrication of evidence, whatever there happens to be out there that can be said. Firejuggler86 (talk) 07:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * B - The word "critics" does nothing in that sentence but diminish the seriousness of the accusations, making them seem like they are fringe opinions. Is it really accurate to describe the Department of Justice as a "critic" in this case? PraiseVivec (talk) 12:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Crossroads' proposal is the best here, and I oppose B due to the fact that adequate sourcing for it has not yet been established – we can't describe historical problems with the department in the present tense. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Uhhh, the department is currently under a consent decree stemming from a DOJ report from 2017. Isn't that as much "present" as you can get? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You stated above that "This ultimately led to a consent decree requiring reforms of the department"; presumably there have been reforms in the last 4 years. Crossroads -talk- 03:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * B out of these two, as the sources given are not "critics" (like ideologically anti-police academics) but impartial studies and reports. But I notice the lead says "... has a history of police brutality, torture and rape, particularly targeting the African-American community in Chicago" rather than "... has a history of police brutality and misconduct" and I hope this won't be changed without discussion. — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It should be changed. As far as I can tell, those sources and the body of the article discuss police torture and rape (mainly the former) entirely in the context of happening under Jon Burge's direction from 1972-1991, and by Richard Zuley, who retired in 2007. Generalizing from this to the whole department and its entire history, including by implication very recent history, is WP:OR and WP:POV. I'm all for relaying what RS say about these police departments and misconduct, but we also shouldn't be generalizing beyond the sources and end up coming off to readers like "ideologically anti-police academics", as you well put it. Crossroads -talk- 23:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * B The presented sources are factual reports. Sea Ane (talk) 10:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * B Historically, these are established facts and i think by using the word critics it just makes it seem like there is a doubt on those facts.BristolTreeHouse (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Out of the two options B is the best, but whether this should even be in at all is something that needs to be considered. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * B. as option A's wording is biased in nature and violates WP:NPOV. The phrase "critics suggest" is an opinion that is open to interpretation. The phrase "critics" is very broad and can include just about anyone. This type of ambiguity strays away from a neutral based statement. Option B, as mentioned by others, is a statement that can be backed by citations citing facts that can be defended. Jurisdicta (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * B. Avoid the WP:WEASEL language for a cited fact. oknazevad (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * B and . "Critics" qualifies its source and that it is an opinion. Add the unless you are naming the critics.  WP:WEASEL Yousef Raz (talk) 23:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * B, the "critics say" is clearly biased and POV pushing. Shadybabs (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion
As Crossroads proposal is getting support from multiple users, can it be added as an option, together with A and B? Not sure what is the process here. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you are looking for WP:RFCCLOSE. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

"Ella French" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Ella French. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 24 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 17:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)