Talk:Los Angeles Police Department/Archive 1

List of firsts
Something needs to be done about the list of "firsts" which looks like propaganda directly from a recruiting brochure. Examples:

"the first proactive Police Department." The definintion of "proactive police department" is so open to dispute as to be meaningless. This could arguably apply to any organization from the Bow Street Runners on, depending on what "proactive" meant at the time.

"the first law enforcement agency to outlaw gambling and prostitution." Law enforcement agencies don't outlaw anything - they enforce laws. Even so, there have been anti-gambling laws and "morals" laws in this country since the Mayflower Landing.

"most modern police tactics and tools were first tested or designed by the LAPD." Also so open to dispute it is meaningless. Is foot patrol a "modern police tool"? It is certainly emphasized in modern community policing doctrines, but foot patrols date back to the beginnings of policing.

"they have been called the best dressed police department." Also meaningless. Who called them that? Why is their uniform dress unique? And what possible policing significance does it have?

I though about simple deleting these, but I thought some-one more familiar with LAPD history could better revise the list to contribute to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.180.230 (talk • contribs)


 * That's a good point. I'm moving the list here so that we can find sources for it. -Will Beback 01:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Books / Novels
Categories seem redundant. Merge the two? -Roy Laurie


 * I think it's worthwhile separating the fiction from the non-fiction. -Will Beback 22:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I'll move the two fiction books accordingly. --Roy Laurie 07:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps they should be labeled "Fiction" and "Non-fiction" then, to make it a bit clearer? -Russia Moore 01:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Move the lists of books, movies, etc. to a separate list page.
These lists could go on forever.

Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 03:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yea, i argee, go ahead. As they are making more films about the LAPD - the films don't really need to be included in this article about the LAPD do they? Unless the LAPD actually make a film about themselfs.

Dep. Garcia 22:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Move police chiefs list to a separate page?
I would like to move the list of police chiefs to a separate page. What does everybody think?

Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 06:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

LAPD police brutality section and police brutality links discussion
Currently, the only 'discussion' is going on in the edit summaries. If this Edit war continues, it is likely that the article will be temporarily protected. To prevent that, the editors involved in the dispute should discuss things here on the talk page.

When I looked at the links that were recently readded, I noticed that at least one of them absolutely should not be in the article because it is about the UCLA police department and not the LAPD. Another of the links is a VERY uninformative blog entry with some confusing pictures. It's worthless as a link for this article. The rest of them currently do not support any text in the article and therefore are also useless at references.

If you want something in the article about the very long history of police brutality from the LAPD, WRITE IT UP. Don't just dump a rather random bunch of links into the article that won't help the reader of this encyclopedia article. Blank Verse 13:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Improving the LAPD article
As the article is currently written, it is in need of a good weed whacking. For example, there is much in the article that basically repeats what is on the LAPD website, such as the "LAPD organization" section, as well as the info on "ranks" in the force composition section. That information should be deleted. (see WP:NOT for the reasons.)

There are other large sections that I think should be offloaded to their own 'daughter' articles, such as the Radio section moved to Radio use by the Los Angeles Police Department. The large "LAPD in the media" should also get its own article, as well as moving "LAPD Chiefs of Police" to List of Los Angeles Police Department Chiefs of Police.

The huge History section needs to be divided into subsection divided by eras (mostly by Police Chiefs), and the gang enforcement description should be moved to its own section.

Does anyone else have any suggestions, or any comments on my suggestions. Blank Verse 13:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Missing information
There is nothing in the article on any of the LAPD's
 * consent decrees.
 * jails
 * civilian oversight

What else is the article missing? Blank Verse 14:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No Tact in Comments

Don't forget about the ranking system. I clicked on a link to find out how the LAPD ranking system worked and I couldn't find it. That's another thing to be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drakonis (talk • contribs) 15:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

LA Police Commission Merge
I do not belive that that article should be merged with this one. Those are two separate entities, one consisting of civilians tasked with overseeing and regulating the police department, the other consisting of uniformed officers tasked with regulating the citizens of the City of Los Angeles. I don't see how the two mix. Lasdlt 19:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree the commision is a political branch of the mayors office, appointed by the mayor to oversee the PD. They are usually attorneys, are a citizen oversight board. They also get changed out quite often.

Organization
This entire section needs to be rewritten. It's full of inaccuracies, racist comments, and just a lot of general stupidity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkannis (talk • contribs) 11:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, this article does have a lot of hidden vandalism, inaccuracies, racism, and just general misinformation, anyone who knows about this subject can help vastly in improving and fixing this article. Janus8463 00:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which, is there any decent citation for the claim that the population of the Mission Division is "mostly" illegal immigrants? Mostly Latino, to be sure, but I don't buy that claim about their immigration status. Alanmjohnson (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

In popular media??
This section seems to be just in TV and films. What about Music? I can think of a LOT of songs about the LAPD. 82.36.125.13 19:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Trivia lists like that are discouraged in Wikipedia articles. In it's previous incarnation, this section was removed for just that reason. The idea is not to list every mention, but to explain in prose what pop culture illustrates about the LAPD.--chaser - t 21:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

LAPD Wilshire Division
I'm inclined to nominate this for deletion, but would like to hear from others who may know something about the subject. Any chance this could become a solid article, or should it be nuked? — xDanielx  T/C\R 22:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In their current state, the separate division articies are not notable by themselves. As such, I have moved the text from the division articles that I found into this article and requested speedy delete for the division articles. There is clearly no need for the separate articies. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Because the content from these articles was merged into this article, deletion was not an option, as the contribution history must be preserved per the GFDL. I have redirected the division articles to this article. -- Kinu t /c  07:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Expanding the controversies/scandals sections
lets be honest, LAPD is most notable for being an relentlessly ill-behaved police force. i'm not even from LA, i'm from the east coast, and everybody knows that the LAPD is notorious. call that my POV, but the incidents speak for themselves. so it's fair to assume that many people are coming to this page to read about that sort of stuff. but the detail on the page is lacking. the way the scandals section is organized resembles a stub: perhaps we should include a brief explanation next to each link? plus, the controversies section is more than half made up of one incident; plus, needless to say, there's more controversies than the ones listed. 160.39.130.95 (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This should not turned into a link dump. I have integrated the links into a coherent text and created separate articles for the two controversies related at large. Str1977 (talk) 12:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I am an Angeleno (multi-generational) and I would hardly characterize the LAPD as any more notorious than any other urban police department that has had its share of scandals. That aside, the section reflects a good deal of recency and is just a collection of major and minor scandals, all muddled together with no perceptible system of organization.  Meanwhile to very important ones, the "Sleepy Lagoon" murders of the 1940's and related events, and the CRASH scandal that lead to the Christopher Commission aren't even mentioned in the section.  It need some serious reworking.  Drmargi 18:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Introduction facts
Per Skyfox11's comments that got deleted, something is wrong somewhere when the start of the article claims "it is the fifth largest law enforcement agency in the United States (behind the New York City Police Department, Chicago Police Department, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the Federal Bureau of Investigation)" and the Los_Angeles_County_Sheriff's_Department article claims it the LASD is the "The LASD is...the fourth largest state or local law enforcement agency in the United States"

Can someone look into the facts and correct both articles as necessary? Mfield (talk) 05:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll look into it and get back to you. Velcrochicken17 (talk) 18:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Animal Cruelty Task Force
The Los Angeles Animal Cruelty Task Force (ACTF) is on the LAPD website, but can someone put it on the Wikipedia LAPD article? the info is available at http://www.lapdonline.org/actf.L.J. Tibbs (talk) 13:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like a good thing to add, I'll see what I can do. oknazevad (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

obvious conflict in starting pay
That is all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.128.12 (talk) 03:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Crime by Officers
The "Crime by Officers" section should be at least moved to Section 9 "Controversy" under "Other Controversies". Crime by Officers SHOULD NOT be put under same section as Fallen Officers that is just disrespectful for those who gave their lives for the community. One bad apple does not make every other one just as bad, it should not be this way. I will temporary move the Crime By Officers section to Other Controversies for now and see if anyone want to discuss this small case of a bad apple. Obviously when you have this large of a department you are bound to find someone stepping away from the law instead of enforcing it. Should look into NYPD and see how they handle the article in regards to "Misconduct" and their list. One thing for sure putting it right under fallen officers is not the right thing to do. That is just rotten..... Neoking (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not in the "fallen officers" section, it's in the "history" section. It's as much history as a shrine to officers is. They should both be moved out of the history section if that's what you prefer. tedder (talk) 22:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * tedder, I think the word "Controversy" is pretty self explanatory under Section 9 of the article in regards to controversial crimes by officers. And yeah maybe "Fallen Officers" should be moved out of the "History" section and have its own section, just like NYPD, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Chicago Police Department, and other articles on law enforcement agencies.  Neoking (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the sectioning and editing tedder, the article looks much nicer now. Good call on putting fallen officers below LAPD Awards. Neoking (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yep, I moved "fallen officers" down to match NYPD. Generally, I tend to agree with the WP:NOCRIT essay, which says that segregating the article isn't the best. In any case, I'm happy with how it is now (both "fallen" and "crime" out of the history), or how it began ("fallen" and "crime" in the history), but not with the shrine being at the top of the article and anything controversial being buried deeper in the article. That doesn't give a neutral point of view to the article. tedder (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Pictures
Why are there so few pictures of LAPD's cars and officers ? It's sad because the article is quiet good but not illustrated at all... Any one to make some pictures of the LAPD for Commons ? Best regards, Kevin Benoit &#91;Let's discuss!&#93; 11:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * How many pictures do you want? There are pictures of stations, officers, and patrol vehicle already. It is a huge department and lot of employees. Ucla90024 (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't want many pictures. I've just took a look on the Commons category, and saw thatthere are not many pictures... But I just found some Flickr's users who agree to give it to Commons.
 * Just a small comparison : there are only 2-3 pictures of LAPD's cars whereas there are more than 50 pictures on the same NYPD's category. The number of picture isn't the problem, it's the lack of diversity and quality pictures... Kevin Benoit &#91;Let's discuss!&#93; 08:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Recommend lock
Recommend protecting this article in wake of numerous vandalism in wake of Dorner incident, especially the introductory sentence of this article 75.172.22.191 (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Seconded. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 09:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

"In 1986, Officer Stephanie Lazarus killed her boyfriend's ex-wife." (quote is from current article)
Is this correct? Elsewhere it says Rasmussen was the wife of Lazarus's exboyfriend.76.218.104.120 (talk) 06:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Bold deletion!
Hooray for the bold deletion by Zackmann08! This article is much too long as it is. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 06:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Possible Addition to the Resources List
Is there any way that someone could mention that SIS now uses the Glock 30S pistol, that they actually helped to design? L.J. Tibbs (talk) 02:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Los Angeles 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/20130111153857/http://little-details.livejournal.com/1753374.html to http://little-details.livejournal.com/1753374.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722124708/http://www.parc.info/client_files/Special%20Reports/1%20-%20Chistopher%20Commision.pdf to http://www.parc.info/client_files/Special%20Reports/1%20-%20Chistopher%20Commision.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://harrymarnell.com/media/rquistcalls.wav

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) 19:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Los Angeles 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/20110823140559/http://www.joinlapd.com/career_ladder.html to http://www.joinlapd.com/career_ladder.html

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) 03:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Controversies and misconduct
What about the Black Dahlia murder scandal of January 1947? I think the LAPD cover-up has been confirmed. Valetude (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Los Angeles 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/20080706124720/http://lasd.org/aboutlasd/history.html to http://www.lasd.org/aboutlasd/history.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://harrymarnell.com/media/rquistcalls.wav
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060719115402/http://www.heritage.org/Research/Crime/HL573.cfm to http://www.heritage.org/Research/Crime/HL573.cfm
 * Added tag to http://laist.com/2008/01/02/name_the_new_la.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080514153423/http://www.joinlapd.com/index2.html to http://www.joinlapd.com/index2.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080708141036/http://www.joinlapd.com/bonus.html to http://www.joinlapd.com/bonus.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090211201943/http://joinlapd.com/salary.html to http://www.joinlapd.com/salary.html

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) 08:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Los Angeles 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/20080511122234/http://lasd.org/stations/for2/compton/ to http://www.lasd.org/stations/for2/compton/

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) 15:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Los Angeles 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/20141217130309/http://www.laphs.org/history.html to http://www.laphs.org/history.html

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) 20:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

seal and flag of LAPD
Recently, FOX 52 removed flag of LAPD claiming that it redundant image (with seal of LAPD). I disagree as flag and seal are different things, I also shown that the flag can be found here, and revert it back. But he is not accepting that claiming source for flag of LAPD coming from blog and cite WP:BLOGS and photo cannot be accepted as source as per WP:NOR. However, if we look up the seal of LAPD, it also comes from the same "blog" as the flag of LAPD. So, based on his logic then seal of LAPD should also be removed. any thought about this? (Ckfasdf (talk) 08:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC))
 * Find a verified source of the flags validity - pictures with no meta data lead to original research, and the accuracy of the flag is called in question, since the image doesn't show it fully displayed. - FOX 52 (talk) 11:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I can personally confirm the authenticity of the flag in question, however cannot seem to find any specific departmental regulation as to the authorization or correct style thereof, therefore I agree with Fox 52. I will keep looking, but the flag is prominently displayed in many department locations, i.e the ARTC academy and Randal Simmons Headquarters. JJan818 (talk) 07:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Patch of the Los Angeles Police Department.svg

Lead should cover misconduct
The largest section of the article is about the racism, police brutality, and police corruption of the LAPD, which includes a recent period when the LAPD operated under a consent decree with the DOJ after a 2000 DOJ investigation concluded that there was rampant racism, police brutality, and police corruption within the LAPD. This is what the lead looked like in August 2000. That version should be restored. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree, my friend. The LAPD goes back a long time, so it doesn't make sense to highlight this one bit of its history, which is not even recent. But thanks for the suggestion; I understand why you made it, considering how much of the article is devoted to it. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Two responses: (i) Re: Recentism, the misconduct is not unique to recent years though. (ii) Shouldn't the lead be a concise summary of the body? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, the consent decree that the LAPD entered into was not strictly due to recent events, but systemic problems stretching back decades (per RS). So, the argument that is a small sliver of history is not accurate. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's WP:UNDUE and WP:POV to put this past stuff in the lead, let alone to take up nearly half of it. This stuff is not half of the topic of law enforcement in Los Angeles. Leads have to be NPOV and can't cherry-pick negative material for a prominent spot. Crossroads -talk- 22:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Should misconduct be mentioned in the lead?
Should the lead note include 2-3 sentences that the LAPD has (1) a history of corruption, brutality and discriminatory policing, (2) a 2000 DOJ investigation found rampant racism, police brutality, and police corruption within the LAPD, and (3) the LAPD was subsequently placed under federal oversight from 2001 to 2013? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

 References



Survey

 * No to all, it's majorly WP:UNDUE and WP:POV to put this past stuff in the lead, let alone to take up nearly half of it. This stuff is not half of the topic of law enforcement in Los Angeles. Leads have to be NPOV and can't cherry-pick negative material for a prominent spot. We don't write to push an ACAB narrative. Points 2 and 3 are explicitly outdated. Point 1 is "historical", meaning when exactly? Dropping a bunch of sources in your RfC is not helpful. Which of them verifies the proposed text? Crossroads -talk- 23:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And seriously, three sentences? This same user tried the same thing at NYPD and going for that long was clearly rejected by an RfC there. And that lead was already quite a bit longer than this one. Crossroads -talk- 23:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding the sources: This book by Herbert has no clear connection to "corruption, brutality and discriminatory policing". It is instead about territoriality. This by the LA Times from 2006 is an opinion piece, and hence not usable for statements of fact per WP:RSOPINION. Crossroads -talk- 22:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes. It provides basic information about the history of this organization. Currently, the lead includes one very short paragraph about the LAPD. That is not sufficient. Misconduct is covered in the largest section in the body of the article, thus the lead should cover the content in a concise neutral manner. It makes sense to note the well-documented history of misconduct (see the academic sources above which cover this history or the news reports that refer to an extensive history of misconduct). It also makes sense to cover the 2001 consent decree with the Department of Justice which led to the most substantial reforms of the organization, and which placed the organization under federal oversight for more than a decade. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * LAPD history is more than just police corruption. You are proposing to take an aspect of an aspect and take up half the lead with it. We don't spend half the lead of any article going on about how the subject was historically so terrible. Crossroads -talk- 23:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting 2-3 sentences on this topic to the lead. I fully support fleshing out the lead with other content, as well. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - LAPD, 3rd largest in US, known world-wide, and has a lengthy, colorful history. For an subject like this, with 132Kb of content and a fairly large 'controversy' section, it would normally seem reasonable to at least note that "the department has experienced a number of controversies" in the lead. But that said, the lead is surprisingly brief, all considered. (Compare it to the lead of NYPD, which is only 55kb, though it's 'controversies' section was split off, something that should happen here also). Just some observations, take them as you will. - wolf  00:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. This is an important aspect of the department's history (as reflected in extensive reliable sources, including academic sources) and is included in the article, so I think 2-3 sentences in the lead is perfectly proportionate. If others want to include other important aspects of the department (including its jursidiction, technology, recruitment/personnel, cultural impact, etc.), then they can certainly add it. I think this material can easily sit aside other historical material: a well-balanced lead would include mentions, for example, of the Rodney King, Ramparts scandal, other key scandals, the DOJ consent decrees and associated reforms, and other historical material, like Special Order 40, Alice Stebbins Wells, and LAPD's trademark of its name (a first in policing). Neutralitytalk 01:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes - The department has had a worldwide reputation (especially after the Rodney King incident) of corruption, misconduct, scandals, etc. for decades now, easily evidenced by years and years of reliable sources... there is no reason that we shouldn't dedicate at least a couple sentences of the lead to this aspect... further details can be covered in the appropriate section, but it is too well known not to garner a small part of the lead... - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Worldwide reputation? And still ongoing? Such claims need sources to back them up. Crossroads -talk- 22:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes - The lead could stand to be longer in general but these are definitely some of the things we should include. It's hard to imagine an article on the organization responsible for the beating of Rodney King and whose longest section is "Controversies and misconduct" could not include that information prominently. Loki (talk) 06:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No. The history of the LAPD goes back to the early part of the 19th century, so talking about its present-day travaille would be a fine example of WP:recentism. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes - The controversies and misconduct sections is a large part of the article and should be reflected in the lead. More than 60 references are used throughout that section, it's not like the information is not supported by sources. As for claims of recentism, the said sections covers information going back as far as at least the 1950s, so painting the contentious information as being a recent phenomenon is simply not true. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The 1950s? That's pretty recent. Best wishes anyway. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 1950 is recent in this context? The period since 1950 accounts for 47% of the LAPD's history! And it actually accounts for 59% of the department's history in the period that it has had more than 70 officers. (The LAPD was a very small force in its early years.) 207.161.86.162 (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * No, if addition is made to the current lead. The current lead (sentence?) is way too short and adding it would be undue. Additionally, I am opposed to including words as phrased. (example, "history of corruption, brutality and discriminatory policing" could be phrased as "over the years, there has been several incidences of corruption and police brutality in LAPD"). I think the way forward is to first expand the lead a bit. Add a bit of history, a sentence of two about the various controversies and refer to some of the incidents such as Rampart scandal.--DreamLinker (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it can probably be condensed into 2 sentences. 1-2 sentences about their history in general (unrelated to this RFC), one about their history of corruption, brutality and discrimination and the department of justice investigation and one about the consent decree and any actions taken after the decree. A DOJ investigation is basically the gold standard for unbiased research and info about a police department and a summary of DOJ conclusions for any investigation into a police force post 2000 is the best sourcing you can possibly get for a lead about an American police department.Shadybabs (talk) 14:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes – This information is crucial to provide an overview of the department's history. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, but why should it be in the WP: lead, or, rather, in what way should it be in that lead? Thanks for the comment. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As to why it should be in the lead, it is sufficiently core to the topic that even a "concise overview" (to use WP:LEAD's language) would be incomplete without it. This is necessary to conform to WP:LEAD, which provides,
 * As to "in what way" it should be in the lead, I'm open-minded as to the exact language that should be used, but has provided us with a strong outline of what it should include. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 06:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, not three sentences added to (or supplanting part of) a three-sentence lead as we currently have. While it is certainly worthy of mention in the lede's summary, as it's a significant portion (~26.8%) of the article, but I think one sentence (at most two) would be enough, something like, "Concerns about a history of corruption and discriminatory policing led to the LAPD being placed under federal oversight from 2001 to 2013" as a last sentence. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes per Neutrality (the user) above. I get the concerns about WP:UNDUE given the really bad lead the article currently has, but that just means we should fix the lead, not use it as an excuse to do nothing. This information is quite obviously important to understanding the other aspects of the department in context; being under federal control for over a decade is quite obviously a major part of the department history, and reliable secondary sources characterize that oversight as resulting from the historical actions and decisions of the department and some of its members. We should discuss that in proportion to the other content in the article given the policy at WP:DUE, but it is disingenuous to pretend that the lead's current length is a barrier when the nominator has made clear they plan to improve the lead generally. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes to 1-2 sentences assuming improvement of the lead. // The user(s) pitching this didn't make the best case, especially given the 1950s comments (the 1920s–1930s were *notorious*); I don't have piles of time to work on this one, but so you know this isn't a tossed-off vote, I added brief notes regarding some 1920s/30s Chief Davis-era controversies (state border control, illegal intelligence operations, car bombs, red squad), 1930s/40s violence against Mexican Americans (Sleepy Lagoon murder trial, Zoot Suit Riots), some setup for the 1950s–1960s Chief Parker / Watts riots years, w/ ~20 refs, including extensive scholarly work on Mexican Americans & the LAPD (1900–1945 + the 1950s post-Bloody Christmas).
 * This is the 4th sentence (in a 4-page entry) for "Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD)" in the 2006 Taylor & Francis Encyclopedia of Police Science: "The department has had a complicated history and has been seen in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries as a corrupt agency, but it is emerging in the twenty-first century as a 'model' of police professionalism." I think we can agree that it's a generous source if it's painting the mid/late-20th c as Promising Years for the reputation of the LAPD, & there was no paid LA police force, or any oversight / "governing body", until ~1870, which doesn't leave a lot of time for non-corrupt associations on the earlier end... So the article needs some work & better organization, but I think if there's early acknowledgment there, we can have it here. // Knifegames (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Premature RFC Longstanding best-practice is embodied in MOS:LEAD and quite clear, the lead summarizes the body and it summarizes it proportionally. There's a lengthy section on misconduct in the article right now and the lead should proportionally represent that. The problem is that just adding that portion without expanding by summarizing everything else does result in undue weight. What is needed is a rewrite of the lead to something that at least half-way resembles what our standards dictate and then trying to weight that appropriately. In a full-length well-written four paragraph lead you will probably end up with 2-3 sentences on that topic, maybe 4. I'm a bit unsure about #2 specifically since mention of single incidents in the lead of higher level topics has to be done with care, but you can't touch upon the department in the 21st century without bringing up #3, and the article has quite a bit to say overall about #1. I guess what I'm saying is expand the lead through the normal editing process, it doesn't have to be weighted right in every edit, but in contentious topic areas don't let it stay that way for very long. Then if there are specific bones of contention, wording where interested parties can't find a good compromise, then go to an RFC. 2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1 (talk) 02:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but make it brief. See the line about the New York City Police Department: "The NYPD has a history of police brutality, corruption, and discrimination on the basis of race, religion and sexuality, which critics argue persists to the present." Short, brief, to-the-point, doesn't overstay its welcome or try to prove something. Plus, seriously, love 'em or hate 'em, trying to hide the LAPD's history of misconduct from the lead is pretty damn hard... and it's notable. The lead needs more work anyways. AdoTang (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes: per Knifegames, the references presented in the RfC statement and the weight given to criticisms of the LAPD in the article proper (though much of it needs better sourcing). The article has a large number of serious issues, including that it contains too much detail (some of which could be split to separate pages, some of which is copaganda that needs to go, some of which is construing everything from the news as a "controversy" without quoting who criticised the LAPD and why), it segregates all the negative content "Controversies and misconduct" rather than incorporating it naturally throughout each relevant section, and the lead is far too short. Rather than trying to maintain an additional inadequacy for consistency, those opposing on the grounds of undue weight should instead expand the lead with other content, ideally after improving the article's structure and citations. — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Added 1 line + lead too short template
This was posted two months ago & has been 12-3 yes for two weeks, so I added one sentence to the lead: "The LAPD has been criticized for its history of police brutality, corruption, discriminatory policing, and human rights violations"; normally I'd go with more specificity, but wanted to err on the side of brevity given discussions of undue weight. I also added the lead too short template, because there's clear consensus that the lead needs to be expanded. // Knifegames (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Operations section
I'm not the only one who thinks the section listing off every division of the LAPD is also unnecessarily long, right? Specifically the patrol divisions under Office of Operations, where I think the short list (between the subsection text and "Operations—Central Bureau") is already enough; no one really cares about the Van Nuys Division's jurisdiction other than the LAPD mega-fans who, judging by the amount of content here compared to the pages for other police departments, appear to have written this entire article. The section also uses nothing but primary sources from the LAPD, but I'm not sure if that's an issue.

Just asking for input here before I get flagged for vandalism for removing the patrol division list. AdoTang (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and remove it. That's the kind of stuff that belongs on the LAPD's own website, not an encyclopedia. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not a major contributor here, but I agree; that stuff is more heat than light and can be, IMO, non-problematically removed (watching for deletion of reused refs, though). Do local gang-bangers read this section to find out which station they'll be taken to when they sell drugs south of Vernon Avenue? &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * While I do think that we don't need a subsection on each division, I do think a chart or list is needed. Maybe model it after the chart of precincts at New York City Police Department. oknazevad (talk) 09:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, there's too much detail here. The fact it's primary sources only indicates there's little due weight, as this goes beyond a basic overview into the minutiae of the large-scope organization. — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've ripped out all the division-by-division/precinct stuff, keeping the lists of what divisions are in which bureaus. We lost some information in the process, such as which streets are covered by which division/station, and how many square feet the Olympic station has, but I think we've got an appropriate level of coverage for this section. (OTOH, the LAPD as a whole has a crazy layout, as shown by their org chart. Sheesh! I'll maybe compare our description with that PDF when I'm feeling stronger.) hope you don't mind me doing this. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Nah, you're good, thanks. AdoTang (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Great, a definite improvement. — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

More removals
Snooganssnoogans, please do not rip out large amounts of text without getting consensus here first. How a law enforcement agency works is encyclopedic. It's not all brutality and corruption. Crossroads -talk- 23:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The content in question is "Organizational structure" gobbledigook, such as "The Office of the Chief of Staff is composed of the Board of Police Commissioners Liaison, the Public Communications Group, the Media Relations Division, and the Employee Relations Group." This has ZERO encyclopedic value and is of no interest to anyone. If a reader wants an organizational chart of the LAPD and wants to learn what subdivisions exist in the accounting department, then they can go to the LAPD website to learn that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that there may be some excessive detail in there; however, your claims of it being unencyclopedic and of no interest "to anyone" are 100% subjective. You even removed material about the Office of Constitutional Policing and Policy, "Born out of the Department of Justice's federal consent decree, [it] is responsible for the development of LAPDs policies and procedures, internal auditing and compliance programs, litigation involving the LAPD..." Don't you think it might skew the article's POV to add material about a history of police misconduct to the lead, while at the same time removing any mention of reforms mandated by the consent decree as a result of the past misconduct? Crossroads -talk- 01:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, that content should also go. There's a sizable section about the consent decree and the reforms that happened as a result of it, and it's all sourced to actual RS. We should not have primary sourced content on some office that does vapid bureaucratic things: "the Office of Constitutional Policing and Policy is responsible for the development of LAPDs policies and procedures, internal auditing and compliance programs, litigation involving the LAPD, the formation and implementation of the LAPDs long-term strategic plan and risk management strategies, as well as coordinating all local, state, and federal governmental and legislative affairs." This is bureaucratic gobbledigook that communicates nothing substantive and has zero encyclopedic value. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you think an article on a major city's police department should cover? There is more to law enforcement than misconduct. Crossroads -talk- 02:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe such an article should reflect what RS report, which is what the core WP guidelines say. I do not believe that such an article should contain mundane organizational chart trivia and bureaucratic gobbledigook. No one needs to know that "The Office of the Chief of Staff" has four subdivisions which are called bla bla bla, and what the dozens of awards that the organization gives to its staff looks like, just as the readers of the KFC article don't need to know where the HR and accounting departments lie in the organizational structure of the company, and the categories of awards that the company gives to its staff. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm not saying everything has to be kept, but we have to keep WP:PRESERVE in mind regarding material for which better sources likely exist. WP:PRIMARY sources also are not banned. There are many sources that talk about policing in detail, how it's done and how it's organized, and not just from a perspective of focusing on brutality. WP:TE is editing in a partisan and skewed manner, which I believe applies to editing police department articles only to add stuff about brutality and corruption and removing other stuff. We should be editing so as to speak of the good and the bad per due weight, not all one or the other. Crossroads -talk- 03:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My take is that most of the org structure and medals sections are of interest to only a small subset of readers and that unless these are sourced with Independent Sources are generally WP:UNDUE detail.


 * I'm not an expert in "standard" or "normal" police rank/department structure, but unless an Org's structure is NOTABLY unique, I would say that there should be little detail discussing it. Some articles on large churchs/denominations have one or two paragraphs of explanation on their structure, but not as large of sections as in this article.


 * I note that several departments of LAPD have their own articles: Mental Evaluation Unit, Threat Management Unit, Metropolitan Division, Air Support Division...these should be mentioned and linked, and maybe the counter-terrorism unit (since only big departments like NYPD tend to have these) but a lot of the rest should be removed/condensed. --- Avatar317 (talk) 04:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, any units/divisions with their own articles should be covered per WP:Summary style, or perhaps merged (but not gutted). Then it's not so heavy on controversies. Crossroads -talk- 22:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Is the purpose of keeping that unreadable filler in the article to prevent readers from reading about the scandals and misconduct of the LAPD (which for some reason is lumped at the bottom)? Is there no policy-based rationale for keeping the content in the article? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS. Anyone can see and click on the controversies/misconduct section easily, and those are typically at the bottom in other articles. Having that even before material about the organization itself, as you preferred, is itself problematic. I gave my rationale above and am letting others comment, which is how it's supposed to be. Crossroads -talk- 23:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Firearms (lack of) sources, updated models
I would say that much of the "Resources" section info should be moved to the Los Angeles Police Department resources article, but right now the majority isn't reliable because the "firearms" section's primary sources do not provide the cited information––though I left some of the unsourced material in the interest of not axing everything. The three main sources are "Gun Nuts Media" and two LAPD pages, one to a list of "blocks of instruction" covered in firearms training and the second an equipment list; neither LAPD source provides any history, further description, or conditions of use. The list of what officers carry "now" was retrieved in 2014, and a quick search of the equipment page shows a number of those models are no longer included.

I updated the list of handguns with the 2021-listed models & left what presumably were the 2014 SWAT weapons. "Gun Nuts Media" doesn't seem like the most reliable source, but I left some of what that page *does* include, updating to reflect the source's degree of specificity (e.g., a note about "1987" is listed as being in "the 1980s" on GNM). // Knifegames (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

LAPD misconduct: "critics say" or just state in Wikipedia's voice?
A RfC just concluded where I asked "Should the lead note include 2-3 sentences that the LAPD has (1) a history of corruption, brutality and discriminatory policing, (2) a 2000 DOJ investigation found rampant racism, police brutality, and police corruption within the LAPD, and (3) the LAPD was subsequently placed under federal oversight from 2001 to 2013?" I did not ask whether the lead should say that LAPD "has been criticized" for its misconduct, which alters the well-documented misconduct in the department from an established fact to an attributed perspective. Should the lead attribute the misconduct as a critics POV or as an established fact? In other words, should this edit be in the article? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please look again and note that it does not, in fact, attribute the misconduct as a POV. It states that the department "has been criticized for its history of police brutality, corruption, and discriminatory policing"; "for its" clearly states that history as a plain fact. It also states why that history is being mentioned - as a grounds of criticism. This is ' wording, which I support. Buidhe's closure statement above is clear: There is a strong consensus to include a few sentences about controversies as part of a fully developed lead, based on these aspects being prominently and consistently covered in reliable sources....I was asked on my user talk if this RfC close endorses a specific wording of how the controversies are to be discussed in the lead. It does not. Most of the comments were not specific enough to find a consensus for a particular wording. This is exactly as I understand it. I don't see how your wording is any more direct than mine, other than not mentioning that critics point to that for some reason. This page seems to have a number of other watchers who can weigh in. Crossroads -talk- 01:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The current statement in the lead looks good to me; it presents the problems as fact. I do agree that the lead should be bigger and summarize more of the article.--- Avatar317 (talk) 04:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, ––Yes, that is what you asked in the RfC, but there was not majority consensus for 2-3 sentences within the lead *as it then stood* (and still stands); given that the lead had not been improved, I "err[ed] on the side of brevity given discussions of undue weight", as I noted above, and ' comments reflect my reasoning regarding specific word choice. I contributed a significant amount of research in support of your proposal––I mostly work on music, here, so if I'm in the top 3 for authorship of the LAPD article then I clearly think it's important!––but if you want all of that in the lead, you should work on expanding it so we can avoid a situation like that in the previously-cited NYPD RfC. Much of the unqualified support was based on a shared assumption that you "plan to improve the lead generally" (as per ), and it will be very helpful if you do so. Thanks! // Knifegames (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've adjusted the wording so instead of nebulously defined "critics" it specifies that the history of abuse, racism, misconduct, etc., were documented by independent commissions who were investigating the LAPD. More tuning on the lead is appropriate for the sake of clarity and brevity, but I think direct attribution is a good compromise between "critics say" and wikivoice. Shadybabs (talk) 03:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)