Talk:Knoxville Police Department

Killings by KPD
This section was removed with a complaint that POV and NOTNEWS. Language here is neutral and backed by sources. Incidents are not recent or current events. Similar information is recorded on other Wikipedia pages for police killings. I am reinstating this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EastTNPoliceStories (talk • contribs) 16:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Good bot. Thank you. EastTNPoliceStories (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * - Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a database of information; it is an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, probably all police departments have killed people; as such, we do not list every one. We generally only list high profile cases, such as Killing of George Floyd, Shooting of Michael Brown, etc. Also, the fact that similar stuff exists is not a valid argument here. Bneu2013 (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * - "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" - Citation Needed and I'll provide it for you: WP:NOTNEWS however it is indeed a database of information. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lists_of_lists And before you quote WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, you should read it. It's not a policy. It's an essay. And when it applies is a matter of opinion. Furthermore WP:PLOT is the only policy I can find that discusses list and databases and it cleary states that "Wikipedia is not an *indiscriminate* collection of information" [Emphasis mine]. The section summary goes on to say: "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." which is exactly what I did by placing the information in the most relevant section of the most relevant page and providing local news sources. To the side bar of not listing every killing by police because of their quantity, not only does wikipedia do exactly that, but also it catalogs all officer deaths as well.

Also, Here's a choice line from that other stuff link: "Keep There's an article on x, and this is just as famous as that. – EmperorOtherstuff, 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)" KEEP it says there. EastTNPoliceStories (talk) 18:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I have have again removed this information, because you have not allowed sufficient time for this discussion to reach consensus. You have argued that the language here is neutral and backed by sources. While there are sources, it is not clear that the events described reach encyclopedic notability. Police shootings of civilians will always generate local news coverage; they are only significant to an encyclopedia if they are somehow notable -- if the event received widespread (not local) coverage or resulted in some change in policy. These events do not appear to meet those criteria. As for the neutrality of the language, I would argue that using the word "murder" to describe a police shooting for which there is no visual evidence and which the presiding judge in the case threw out is anything but neutral. While I understand that we should not treat any police shooting of a civilian lightly, we must also avoid disparaging the reputation of a police force by giving undue weight to these three incidents. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * From consensus "Except in cases affected by content policies or guidelines, most disputes over content may be resolved through minor changes rather than taking an all-or-nothing position. Often, a simple rewording will satisfy all editors' concerns. Whether changes come through editing or through discussion, the encyclopedia is best improved through collaboration and consensus, not through combat and capitulation. Be bold, but not rash. In most cases, the first thing to try is an edit to the page, and sometimes making such an edit will resolve a dispute. Use clear edit summaries that explain the purpose of the edit. If the edit is reverted, try making a compromise edit that addresses the other editors' concerns."
 * I have made several edits to the content as requested, including removing language that some have called "not neutral". I'm happy to edit the word "murder" to kill. I have made clear summaries of my edits. I only undid reversions without changes after responding on talk pages as requested and making any substantive changes suggested. Regarding notable "Within Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article." I'm not sure how this is relevant. I'm not creating an article. This section was interesting to me though: "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable. Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. This may include effects on the views and behaviors of society and legislation. For example, the murder of Adam Walsh ultimately led to the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, among other notable subjects." This event is certainly notable in the sense that it preceded multiple thousand plus attendee protests in Knoxville following the death George Floyd. It is notable in relation to national policing trends in the US which are current news AND historical fact as well as fodder for art, film, and other cultural products.


 * I am reinstating my additions and will edit the word murder to killing, as suggested by WikiDan61 and the consensus page.


 * Your WP:WikiLawyering will not get you out of the problem that your edits are not acceptable to the community. The dispute is not over a single word, it over the inclusion of the content in its entirety. As I have mentioned, inclusion of this material gives undue weight to the events. If these events have had a significant impact on the community, then you have failed to document that fact. All you have done here is to tarnish the reputation of the department by concentrating on these three isolated events. Show me a reliable source that has pointed out a pattern of improper shootings by this department and we can include that information, but until then, I disagree with your inclusion of the material. Also, your continued insistence on restoring it after it has been removed by multiple edits constitutes edit warring and will likely get you blocked. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * From the header of WP:WikiLawyering "This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." You arguments are verbose, but not substantive. I do not think my actions rise to Edit Warring, but thank you for the link. As it advises, I will not enact more than 3 reverts per 24 hours. I believe I am acting within WP:BRD guidelines. Specifically:  "Cycle. To avoid bogging down in discussion, when you have a better understanding of the reverter's concerns, you may attempt a new edit that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns. You can try this even if the discussion has not reached an explicit conclusion, but be sure you don't engage in any kind of edit warring." I believe I have made edits and compromises in good faith and offered further compromises. EastTNPoliceStories (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I will point out that the selection of WP:CONSENSUS that you decided to quote refers to "minor disputes" over single words. When your entire addition has been reverted, this falls to the next paragraph ("Thorough discussion") where the WP:BRD policy comes into play. You were bold, you were reverted, now we must discuss. Please do not restore the content again until the discussion is complete. Also, my reference to WikiLawyering was not meant to cite policy, but merely to point out the behavior in which you are engaged. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I await your reply suggesting a compromise that includes the relevant history of KPD while maintaining the NPOV and NOTNEWS guidelines. I reject your UNDUE claim. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." I have provide simple summaries with direct primary sources of the events in question from a neutral POV. They are factual occurrences. No "pattern" is required to include this relevant information. If you would like to expand these facts with sources supporting other opinions, or expand other parts of this page, you should do so. I do not see how objective facts can "tarnish" a reputation. EastTNPoliceStories (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand that you think these events are significant, but you have yet to provide evidence that anyone else does. As I have mentioned, individual news stories about individual events do not establish their significance. If you can provide evidence that reliable sources have reported that these events form part of a pattern of abuse by this police force, please do so. Otherwise, the inclusion of these isolated events, even in the short descriptions you have provided, gives them undue weight and has the appearance of trying to denigrate the force's reputation. You have spoken your piece on this topic, and I have spoken mine. I think it best if we allow any other editors to weigh in at this point. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Pheap's killing led to a Federal Wrongful Death Lawsuit as well as an protest march. I will add this to my next revision. "After an investigation and a protest march against police violence, the Knox County District Attorney ruled the shooting death as “justified” in a November news conference." Carden's case led to a three year court battle. This is already noted in my text and the linked article. The killing of McCauley is included in this report documenting a pattern of abusive behaviors by KPD I will add this detail to my next revision as well.

Since you have pointed to a report documenting a pattern of behaviors, I would suggest rewriting the section along the lines of:
 * The KPD has been cited as exhibiting a pattern of abusive behaviors, including the following incidents:...

continuing with the three incidents as individual list items (not requiring their own subheadings). WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think I would even support the inclusion of this, as it is still extremely common, unfortunately, and generally only falls within local coverage. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, Bneu. I hadn't realized the hyper-local nature of the KCDP PAC document. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 01:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC) I don't understand the relevance of the "hyper-local" nature of the KCDP-PAC. How would a report about a police department be anything other than "hyper-local"? Isn't this police department page as a whole hyper local? In what way is KPD especially notable above other police departments? It isn't, but it's still notable enough to have its own page. Just as the controversial killings by KPD deserve inclusion. EastTNPoliceStories (talk) 02:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * My point is that the KDCP-PAC is a local watchdog group. This report does not represent attention focused on the KPD by any statewide or national group or news outlet. If the KPD's shootings had risen to the point of being considered problematic, it would likely have received more widespread attention, and that problematic behavior would be relevant to the article. As it stands, there is no evidence of that -- all we have are three isolated events. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 10:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't see how this is relevant. Please quote the policy or section of policy that requires state or national noteriety to include factual historical data in an article about an organization or government agency. EastTNPoliceStories (talk) 13:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC) Also, a Federal lawsuit certainly counts as national government attention. EastTNPoliceStories (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * This is a case of righting great wrongs, and NPOV issues. I agree with WikiDan61 this should not be included. VViking Talk Edits 13:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you mean writing great wrongs? NPOV is about tone and grammar, not inclusion. NPOV is not a reason to exclude factual data. The only valid argument against inclusion voiced so far is undue weight, and it's weak on the merits, since the rest of this short article could be vastly expanded. EastTNPoliceStories (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

You appear to have a serious case of "I didn't hear that". You have been told by multiple editors, in multiple venues (see Talk:Knox County, Tennessee) that these individual cases, lacking any context or reliable sources to point to a broader problem of systemic abuse within this police force, are simply not needed at this article. It is clearly understood that you and you alone want the material here, but you have failed with multiple editors to gain consensus for the inclusion of this material. It's time to drop the stick and walk away. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Please note that has brought this matter to the DRN. I would invite  and  to post their views there.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I provided one source and you moved the goal posts from "reliable" to "can't be local". I'm simply asking what is required to prove these notable events are notable and you keep posting non-policy essay pages. EastTNPoliceStories (talk) 18:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I would submit that the Wikipedia page for the LAPD includes similar stories of killings in it's controversies and misconduct section. These snippets are very similar to what I'm attempting to add to KPDs page. I kept the section short to avoid undue weight issues, but if the issue is that I have not elaborated enough poor behavior, I can seek to remedy that. Again, all of these cases have led to either protests, lawsuits, or policy changes. I am happy to add additional details on each case.EastTNPoliceStories (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

EastTNPoliceStories (talk) 18:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I would submit that the Los Angeles Police Department section needs a rewrite in order to place all of the listed events into the context of a documented pattern of abuse by the department. (And by "documented", I mean "a reliable source has called the LAPD's pattern of behavior over the past 70 years abusive and/or controversial".) But the fact that the LAPD article is poorly written and in need of repair does not validate the addition of content here that is even less useful. (At least the LAPD page makes a point of indicating that the items listed (and they are extensive) point to a pattern of abuse, even if it does not properly cite a reliable source for that conclusion.) WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I encourage you to make comments, suggestions and edits on the LAPD page to improve it's content. However, "Controversies" sections on police departments are very common. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Police_Department#Controversies, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Police_Department#Controversies, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_Police_Department#Misconduct_and_internal_affairs KPD's actions have inspired the creation of the PARC, the Knox County Democratic Party Progressive Action Committee report, and protests, all of which allege a pattern of misconduct. Again, show me the policy that requires a pattern of conduct before historical facts are included on a wiki page and how such a pattern is defined. Likewise, I encourage you to provide documentation of a pattern good behavior by KPD to round out the points of view included in this article. EastTNPoliceStories (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I really agree with EastTNPoliceStories ("East"). it sounds like there is little dispute about the sourcing or truth of the material he wishes to add. And the fact that others are fighting it so hard, shows its significant notability. If East is motivated, WikiDan61 ("Dan") is more so. Hey, if it is true, and it is well sourced, it is not as if this is a matter of opinion, where we have to be careful about giving a fringe opinion undue weight. This is truth. Dan, you have the option of putting in material showing the good things the Knoxville PD ("KPD") has done, or information showing that the number of killings is typical for a police department of the size of the KPD. Or information that is exculpatory, in some sense. Make sure the information that East posts is properly date noted, so if the incident is an old one, readers can see that. There is a lot you can do to achieve balance. But saying, "this information is so unimportant that it absolutely must be kept out" is self-contradictory. If it was unimportant, you would not care.Truth Is King 24TALK 03:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The discussion here does not reflect on the notability of the material at hand, it reflects the desire of several editors to get the content of this article right (whatever we all decide that is). I can only guess at East's motivation; my own is to prevent the KPD from being maligned by the inclusion of several out of context events with the implication that these events point to a larger pattern of abuse, but with no actual evidence of that. As for "the truth is the truth", I will point out that true facts, presented without context, can lead to false conclusions. And I do not claim that the material is "so unimportant that it must be kept out", I claim that the material is inflammatory, implying a pattern of abuse that has not been verified. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 10:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I find your assertion that events are not evidence of a pattern, yet their inclusion in the article would imply a pattern to be dizzying, confusing, nonsensical, and entirely beside the point. Existence of a "pattern" is not a requirement for encyclopedic inclusion. These events happened. They caused controversy and policy change. AND THEY RESULTED IN A RELIABLE SECONDARY SOURCE ASSERTING THE ALLEGED PATTERN. If you believe this gives undue weight to this POV, PLEASE PROVIDE RELIABLE SOURCES FOR ANOTHER POV so that all non-fringe POVs can be included. To quote WP:UNDUE "Paraphrased from Jimbo Wales' September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list: If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;" I have linked to prominent adherents. EastTNPoliceStories (talk) 14:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Further notable Wikipedia Policy on this issue: "Still, consensus is not based on votes. This is just an example, and does not constitute permanent resolution. If, in a discussion, 10 editors support one side, and 7 support another, this does not mean the side with 10 automatically wins. It is necessary in such a discussion not just to cast a vote, but to give a good reason for your point-of-view. It may be necessary to turn to Dispute resolution to resolve the issue." - WP:REMOVAL, please provide good reason for your POV that 1) these events do not meet Due Weight standard and 2) that these events DO NOT indicate a pattern of misconduct by KPD. That they do IS NOT MY POV, but the POV of the reliable secondary source you told me to go find. EastTNPoliceStories (talk) 14:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I find that their inclusion implies a pattern of behavior, and further, I believe that the implication is the intention of adding them. But Wikipedia does not deal in implications or inferences; we deal in the information that can be derived from reliable sources. I do not consider the KDCP-PAC document to be a reliable source as it appears to be authored by a partisan group, rather than being the result of impartial reporting. Since you have brought this issue to DRN, I feel that any further discussion here is pointless. I will disengage from further discussion at this venue, and will only respond further at DRN if specifically requested to do so by the DRN volunteer. This discussion here is taking entirely too much of my time. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I only posted back here because you replied to ... Also, another non-policy essay without even a relevant quote pulled? Are you kidding me? Here, II pulled the most relevant quote for you: "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them.[e] For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research.[f] Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences. A book review too can be an opinion, summary or scholarly review.[g] Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." EastTNPoliceStories (talk) 14:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * How is it that WikiDan needs to provide sources. We do not need to provide sources that show something does not indicate a pattern of misconduct by KPD, you need to provide RS, that the community agrees with, that the events do show a pattern of misconduct and that the pattern of misconduct is of such a degree as to be included in an encyclopedia. So far I have not seen that. For the argument from that since we are having a discussion on the talk page of a Wikipedia article then it "shows its significant notability" is double speak like I haven't heard in a long time. That means any dispute on what should be included in this encyclopedia would automatically make it worthy of inclusion. That is not the case; this is why we have discussions on the talk page. What I said on the dispute resolution page still stands, it is unfortunate that police departments need to use force and at times deadly force, but even if their is a local advocacy group that disagrees with the police department, it doesn't mean that the use of force needs to be included in a Wikipedia article or even should be included.  VViking Talk Edits 14:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:TALK "Stay objective: Talk pages are not a place for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue. They are a place to discuss how the points of view of reliable sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral. The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material." I have presented properly referenced source material that alleges a pattern of misconduct. Again, this is not my POV, but the POV of the secondary source material. alleges there is no misconduct, so I'm asking  to provide sources so that both POVs may be included in the article, which would be an appropriate consensus position for this discussion to end on. EastTNPoliceStories (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * , You are implicitly suggesting an unworkable standard: "If a true fact or set of facts could raise a further negative (or inflammatory) inference by some readers it should be excluded unless the would-be contributor can show the negative inference to be true." To implement such a policy (which you will not find in any current wiki policies or guidelines) one must make a number of subjective judgments. 1. Will the fact(s) raise a negative inference? 2. Who gets to decide if the fact(s) will raise a negative inference? 3. What is the standard - what portion of readers must we believe will be led to this negative inference for the information to be excluded? 4. Is the negative inference false? 5. Who gets to decide if the negative inference is false?
 * This is all too much. By your implicitly suggested standard any negative information about any person or group could be excluded, because it would lead some to form a further negative inference. It opens a "can of worms." So, there is no wiki policy or guideline like that. It would so greatly complicate the issue of what information should be included that it would lead to the exclusion of any information to which an editor objected. "What, you want to give the age of the Queen of England? - that could lead some to infer that she will die soon, and you have not proven that." "What, you want to say that there is crime in Wisconsin?! - that will lead some to infer that Wisconsin is a crime-ridden hell hole, and you have not proven that." "First, you prove that Wisconsin is a crime ridden hell-hole, and then you can include information about crime in Wisconsin."
 * I doubt that many readers will reach the conclusion that there is a pattern of abuse at the KPD, based on contribution. It may raise a question, well I would think that is OK. And, you are free to add all the context you want, so if you feel that the information has been taken out of context, add context. We must accept the notion that most people, most WP readers are reasonable, and provided with true information will not reach unreasonable conclusions. If that is not true, we are doomed in any event. Our entire system of democracy and trial by jury is based on the idea that most people are at least reasonable. Truth is King TALK 16:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * ,, Below is my proposed draft for this section:

Controversies
November 26, 2018: Sierra McCauley, 23 years old, was killed by KPD Officer James Gadd on November 26. McCauley was naked and holding a knife when Officer Gadd arrived on scene. He gave 10 verbal commands in 22 seconds before fatally shooting her. The shooting was ruled justified. Officer Gadd is a 23-year KPD veteran. McCauley's death was cited by Knox County Democratic Party Progressive Action Committee as evidence of "racial bias, excessive use of force, and/or insufficient mental health crisis intervention training of the officers involved." August 26, 2019: "Philly" Pheap was suspected of a hit and run. According to eye witnesses, he was shot twice in the back by KPD Officer Dylan M. Williams. There is no camera footage of the shooting, though dash camera footage of some of the lead up is available. Pheap's death was also cited in the Knox County Democratic Party Progressive Action Committee report. A Federal wrongful death lawsuit has been filed by Pheap's family seeking $5M in damages.

July 2014: Ron Carden was shot in the back by Knoxville Police Department Officer David Gerlach. The shooting happened just off to the side of the view of the cruiser mounted camera. According to local Knoxville USA Today affiliate KnoxNews "Chief U.S. District Judge Tom Varlan ruled Tuesday attorney Richard M. Brooks failed – after nearly three years of litigation and a day’s worth of trial testimony in U.S. District Court – to present enough evidence to allow the jury to even consider whether Knoxville Police Department Officer David Gerlach had the legal right to use deadly force against parolee Ronald E. Carden."

As no comments have been made on this proposed edit, I am adding it to the page. EastTNPoliceStories (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)