Talk:Defund the police/Archive 1

Origin of slogan?
Does anyone have information/sources of the first use of the specific slogan "defund the police" in any media? (does it predate the George Floyd protests?) Before now I've only ever heard the concept taken seriously in my own rather rarified political circles, and I'm looking for information as to whether it's as unprecedented as it seems to me that it's gone mainstream.

Thank you for all you do here! Davecampbell (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Rationale section
The section starts with Many argue that policing and prisons in the US are racist (40% of the US prison population are black despite being only 11% of the population) and that police are very often unsuccessful or incompetent in solving murders (approximately one in three are never solved) as well as rape and domestic violence cases. but the source doesn't seem to mention racism in prisons or policing, the prison population, incompetence, rape, or domestic violence? —valereee (talk) 12:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks for catching this, I've updated the reference, it was another reference already on the page, I'd just not reused it there. John Cummings (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Reference 51 (Rates of Drug Use and Sales, by Race; Rates of Drug Related Criminal Justice Measures, by Race) only points to a chart page. It does not show the hard data behind the chart. It has no links to the reference data, which are hard to track down to verify. (I only found one online, the FBI crime report.) It also references 'author's calculations' which are never shown. This isn't a study, as the text claims. It's an unreliable source of information.

Merger proposal
I propose to merge Police abolition movement into Defund the police. I think that the content in the Police abolition movement article can easily be included in the content of Defund the police, and the DTP article is of a reasonable size that the merging of PAM will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. --evrik (talk) 00:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC) I don't think merging the articles makes sense for several reasons:
 * Support (as nom), PAB is a subsection of DTP. --evrik (talk) 16:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Police abolition is discussed by scholars, activists, writers, separately from defunding the police.
 * 2) Defunding the police has been covered in numerous high-profile sources as not explicitly referring to police abolition. The first source cited in the defund the police article (The Guardian) states that they are not necessarily synonymous.
 * 3) Defund the police may focus on an aspect on police abolition, while abolition focuses more fully on abolishing the entire system.
 * 4) Police abolition has a different history that is different from defunding the police.
 * 5) "Defund the police" is a different slogan than "abolish the police," the latter of which directly refers to police abolition.

--Xicanx (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Xicanx. Treetopz (talk) 03:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Personally I think it would be better to merge Defund the police into Police abolition movement; it's a step in police abolition and pretty fully covered there. —valereee (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

MonsieurD (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't think merging is warranted since reliable sources clarify that propositions to defund do not necessarily amount to propositions to abolish.
 * 1) https://www.vox.com/2020/6/3/21276824/defund-police-divest-explainer
 * 2) https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/what-does-defund-police-really-mean/612904
 * 3) https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/06/us/what-is-defund-police-trnd/index.html
 * I think separate is better. While there's overlap between the two, I think readers are better served by having two articles that go in depth, and where they overlap using summary style — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose As other users have said, they are different movements. Additionally, there are cases like Greensboro sit-ins and Sit-in movement which are more closely related but have separate articles. OurStreets (talk) 01:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose they are distinct but related topics. Defund the police is a strategy of the police abolition movement and others, many people and groups arguing for reallocation of police funding do not aim to abolish the police. A useful comparison could be fossil fuel divestment, there are several movements with different motivations arguing for it but these movements all have their own articles. Defund the police is also slogan with a strong cultural meaning in a mainly US context, where as the police abolition movement has a longer history in a wider context. John Cummings (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose They are different issue. Joeccho (talk) 09:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose In my opinion it would be better to merge defund the police into police abolition. However, I oppose both actions, as they are separate (though related) issues. Blellington (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose While there has been some media coverage of those who mean "defunding" as abolishment, most media coverage states that defunding means taking redirecting funds from police to social services. If anything, it would make more sense to merge this article, along with police abolishment, into the article on anti-police sentiment. Overall however, I oppose merging police abolishment with "defunding the police" as they are not the same. SchizoidNightmares (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per everyone else. It's clear that while there is a relationship between the two movements and the potential for some crossover, their defined goals as of now have stark differences. Love of Corey (talk) 09:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose: police abolitionism is a stronger position than supporting some level of defunding. Many people support some resources being divested from police without wanting no police force as an end goal. The police abolition movement has a lengthy and rich history along with substantial academic analysis over a period of decades. We need significant expansion of the article and eventually splitting into multiple sub-articles, not merging. — Bilorv ( talk ) 23:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC at A.C.A.B.
More comments are requested at Talk:A.C.A.B.. 71.178.129.13 (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Ambiguous wording
The following in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defund_the_police#Effectiveness is ambiguous:


 * For example, according to a 2015 report, approximately one in three murders are never solved. This contrasts with fifty years previously, when it was reportedly more than 90% of murders.

"It" in the second sentence relates to "murders never solved" in the first, so it reads literally as "Fifty years ago, over 90% of murders were never solved", which makes the 2015 situation an actual improvement. Since there is no accompanying reference, I can't tell if this is the correct interpretation.

If the actual fact is "over 90% of murders were solved from 50 years previous", I suggest that the second sentence be:


 * This contrasts with fifty years before, when it was reportedly less than 10% of murders.

to avoid confusion. Katatonica (talk) 05:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * , that part seems a little weird now that you mention it. "When police are tasked with managing violent crimes, such as solving murders, some argue that they are often unsuccessful." who is some? that makes the no source sound like the person who wrote it was the "some" that is mentioned. tbh, i dont think claims like that should be made without a source and should be removed, but maybe a would at least point it out to readers.  Stay Free 76  talk 05:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Cities without State
After glancing at the wiki, i noticed that most, if not all, cities are listed without the state they resude in. Assuming the reader has no knowledge of these places, i feel like it makes sense to include the state as well. Also, in some cases, major city names are not unique. One big example is Kansas City, which is in Kansas and Missouri.  Stay Free 76  talk 06:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Patrick Sharkey's "Why do we need the police?"
In including this piece, it is important to actually reflect what the author is saying in the piece. Per WP:QUOTE, "Quotations should be representative of the whole source document; editors should be very careful not to quote material out of context to avoid misrepresenting the meanings and intentions of the source." The first quote included in this article ignored 90% of his article and instead only included the portion where he states there is a lot of evidence that the police are effective at reducing violence -- an obvious mischaracterization of the piece.

In this piece Sharkey is arguing that non-police community entities would be effective at reducing violence if given the same resources police receive, and he argues for robust experiments to explore this.

"What if these alternative actors received the same resources the police do?...

If we ask community organizations and leaders to take over primary responsibility for creating a safe community, they should be given equivalent resources. And we have every reason to believe that a coalition of organizations and leaders with the capacity to hire and train more than 70 professionals — conflict mediators, violence interrupters, youth outreach teams, case workers, mental health counselors, crisis response teams, maintenance and beautification crews, data analysts, liaisons to public agencies — can begin to transform a neighborhood. These would be well-paid, full-time jobs....

In neighborhoods with extreme gun violence, police officers should continue to play a role in responding to some violent crimes, working with the community to solve problems in locations where shootings are common, and focusing their attention on the tiny fraction of residents who account for a disproportionate share of serious violence. But it is not hard to envision a place where police officers are confined to these roles — and otherwise serve as backup to outreach workers, counselors, mediators, social service providers, unarmed traffic safety agents and EMTs, becoming involved only if the first responder requests assistance or an arrest.

Research on street outreach programs suggests that most conflicts and altercations can be defused by violence interrupters and professionals trained in mediation. Physical and mental health crises can be addressed by paramedics and medical professionals, and public-order violations can be handled by homeless-assistance providers, counselors and other social service workers."

The paragraph(s) providing Sharkey's view need to actually reflect what is in the source. Paisarepa (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

And a few other pieces that may help clarify Sharkey's views:

"Two questions that could guide the reform movement are ‘What is it that police actually do?’ and ‘Why do we need armed police to do it?’” says Patrick Sharkey, a Princeton sociologist. Sharkey is no police-hating radical. He has worked with commissioners across the country, and his research has shown that targeted policing can be effective in reducing crime, especially in the most violent neighborhoods. But he thinks communities ought to experiment with alternative models to policing. “Police presence can reduce violence, but there are lots of other things that reduce violence, too. Business improvement districts reduce violence. University security organizations reduce violence. It’s possible that relying on police isn’t as necessary as we once thought, and that we might even have safer communities without many of them."" Emphasis mine; from https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/unbundle-police/612913/

And:

"There’s a basic conclusion from the research on what creates safe neighborhoods: Police are effective at reducing violence, but they aren’t the only ones who are effective.

There’s lots of evidence telling us that other core institutions in a community — institutions that are driven by residents and local organizations — can play a central role in controlling violence. But we’ve never thought of these organizations and residents as the central actors responsible for creating safe streets, so we’ve never given them the same commitment and the same resources that we give to law enforcement and the criminal legal system. When we talk about how to respond to violence, the default response in the US is always to focus on the police and the prison.

The next model should be one driven primarily by residents and local organizations as the central actors. Police still certainly have a role to play, but responding to violent crime takes up only a tiny fraction of police officers’ time. So the idea here is that we can rely on residents and local organizations to take over most of the duties that [officers] currently handle and make sure neighborhoods are safe." From https://www.vox.com/21351442/patrick-sharkey-uneasy-peace-abolish-defund-the-police-violence-cities  Paisarepa (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Globalization
Should this article state that the slogan is primarily used in the United States? Other than two short paragraphs at the end of this article, the entire article is about the United States. feminist (talk) 11:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Plans to Expand on the "Rationale" and "Effectiveness" Section
Hello, my colleagues and I are planning to improve upon the "Rationale" and "Effectiveness" section of this article. We found that the "Effectiveness" section is quite short and we plan to add more to it. We also plan to improve the "Rationale" section in general. Thank you.

Draft Article DRDickerson Copyedit draft- Background "Defund the Police" Since the 1960s, municipal governments have increasingly spent larger portions of their budgets on law enforcement. This is partially rootedRooted in the "war on crime," launched by President Lyndon B. Johnson, which crime control was prioritized crime control via law enforcement and prisons.[1] Meanwhile, policePolice unions have wieldednow wield significant power in local politics,[2] due to direct endorsements of political candidates and funding of campaignscampaign funding.[2] Police department budgets have been consideredThis has resulted in"untouchable" for decadespolice budgets.

Since the 1960s, municipal governments have increasingly spent larger portions of their budgets on law enforcement. Rooted in the "war on crime," launched by President Lyndon B. Johnson, crime control was prioritized via law enforcement and prisons.[3][4] Police unions now wield significant power in local politics,[5] due to direct endorsements of political candidates and campaign funding.[6][7][5] This has resulted in "untouchable" police budgets.[8][9][3]

Rationale Effectiveness The abandoned SPD East Precinct inside the police-free Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone in the Capitol Hill neighborhood of Seattle

Police defunding and abolition activists argue that the police have a poor track record of resolving cases related to murder, rape, and domestic abuse.[3] Many others further argue that police social work intervention, as known, leads to mass incarceration, risk of physical and mental harm, exposure to violence, and in some instances, death.[10]

Nsmith71 (talk) 13:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, assuming that you are working on a university project, you are free to expand the article however you like, as long as you are mindful of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. There is no need to seek approval on this talk page unless you think others may likely disagree with your additions. To cite sources (web URLs or journal articles via DOIs), the "Cite" tool (in visual edit mode) works well enough. Let me know if you or your peers need any help on editing and formatting. feminist (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Please be sure to avoid WP:Synthesis (also called "original research"). We relay what sources say about defunding the police, rather than make an argument for (or against) defunding the police, in accord with WP:NPOV. Thus, you should be sure to stick to WP:Reliable sources, and only use sources that discuss the topic of defunding the police. Advocacy or political groups that fight for or against police defunding are not reliable sources because they lack independence from the subject. Crossroads -talk- 21:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

New source about about popularity (or lack thereof) of the slogan
Hi folks,

Here's a new source about how the slogan influenced swing voters. MonsieurD (talk) 16:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Defund the police =/= Police abolition
The lead should clarify, as this WaPo piece did, that outright abolition of police departments is rarely advocated by proponents of defunding the police. At the very least, there should be a clarification that defund the police is not per se about police abolition. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The start of the article and third paragraph literally cover that in explicit detail, talking about how they often use the call for police budget reductions and to delegate certain police responsibilities to other organizations etc nowhere does it say that outright abolition is often advocated for by proponents of the movement, hence you'd be refuting something that doesn't even exist. And with an article that isn't even on that exact subject but one where the info is plucked in an WP:UNDUE manner to make a point no less. Davefelmer (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "Nowhere does it say that outright abolition is often advocated for by proponents of the movement". The third sentence in the lead makes it appear as if the movement is evenly divided between those arguing for police abolition and those who advocate for actions short of police abolition. Per WP:UNDUE: "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't think it implies that or makes it appear that way at all. Davefelmer (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I mean, it says “some seek modest reductions, while others argue for full divestment as a step toward the abolition of contemporary police services.” That looks like an even split. A clause in the middle that stands between those extremes could help. Or replaces “others” with “a few.” JonesyPHD (talk) 09:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

First sentence of the final paragraph in the first section is misleading
It should be changed to, “have criticized some aspects of the police defunding movement, while supporting others.”

After all, that more clearly describes the sources cited. Without mentioning the support, the sentence is potentially misleading. It looks like some United front has condemned the movement rather than critical assessed it. If it had read that scholarship and journalism “have supported aspects of the police defunding movement” that would be just as misleading, right? Even though it’s true. JonesyPHD (talk) 08:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The entire rest of the lead is about the support the concept has received from scholars and journalists. If anything, we should replace that text with a description of why the idea has been criticized. Crossroads -talk- 05:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 September 2020 and 9 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nsmith71, DRDickerson, Kennedydreiman.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 June 2021 and 31 July 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Paristgh.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced additions
if a source is cited, you'd be cool with the edit staying there? (defund the police edit war) 2001:8F8:173D:4429:DC1C:45E2:FCE9:DEB6 (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @2001: Citing the content is the bare minimum for inclusion. As identified in this edit summary, there are three claims that need to be clearly supported in reliable sources (RS):
 * initially embraced by Democrat politicians in the weeks following the murder of George Floyd: "embraced" is a strong word, and you'll need to find a strong quote from an RS backing it up
 * highly unpopular: StarkGaryen added the "highly" here. The FiveThirtyEight source says that as of June 2020 24-39% of Americans (depending on survey) supported defunding the police. That's unpopular, a term used by FiveThirtyEight. I'm not sure that's highly unpopular.
 * consisting overwhelmingly of progressive lawmakers: Again, there's a copy-editing problem here: a minority of whom? In the current wording it's clear that the intention is a minority of lawmakers, but the edit changes that. If StarkGaryen and you are trying to say that Democratic lawmakers who support defunding "consist[] overwhelmingly of progressive[s]", the "overwhelmingly" in particular needs a source... That one's probably true, but it still needs a source, and rewording to be clear what it's a minority of.
 * That doesn't preclude objections to these lines for other reasons (such as WP:NPOV), but sourcing is the major concern here, yes. I hope that clears things up. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 20:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

New article
Stockton, California 7-Eleven incident

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Did you intend to post this somewhere else? Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 20:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I put it on a few article talk pages. I thought other editors might be interested in editing it. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 23:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)