Talk:Misconduct in the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

One big copy vio?
In looking at this, the article as written does not appear to meet the fair use requirements. Large portions of the text are directly copied from the various sources. As such the text is plagiarism which must be deleted. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Gosh I hope you are not talking about the bits I contributed. Can you give an example so I might hammer away at it?Paul, in Saudi (talk) 12:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, basically everything. Everywhere I checked, the text here is mostly a word for word copy of the source!  If it was a few areas, then it could be cleaned up, but given the extent deletion with an allowed recreation seems the only option. Take the phrase controversial local polygraph examiner cleared the cops in the 1980's.  That is not the only case.  This, for me at least, crosses the line when you take all of the cases.  If you want to go in an rewrite every thing that could work but would take a while.  Vegaswikian (talk) 03:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Lede
I'vve removed the lede entirely on grounds that it represents OR, SYNTH and a variety of other problems. I've notice a lot of re-adding, as the edit summaries state: I'll have a look at whether they're re-adding copyright violations.  Acroterion   (talk)   19:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

BLP
I'm removing all entries that mention individuals who were never charged, who were charged with no referenced evidence of conviction, or who were accused while no longer in the department's employ. This is per WP:BLP, WP:BLP1E, WP:BLPCRIME and WP:PERP, where we are required to exercise great caution in naming otherwise non-notable individuals in connection with criminal charges. Individuals are not notable simply because they're employed by the LVPD. I would argue that some of the convictions could do without the names of the individuals involved, either. A more compliant and more readable article could be crafted without naming names, using the sources available. Articles should not serve as laundry lists of offenses, and it's fair to say that similar lists could be compiled for most major metropolitan police forces.  Acroterion   (talk)   22:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Off-duty Incidents
Acting boldly, I have tried to remove all off-duty incidents not resulting in some sort of payment by the department. It is not as if the page is lacking in content. Further, as mentioned above we ought to be very careful in dealing with living people. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

If you're going to remove factual information which is available in LVMPD arrest reports and bookings, then why BOTHER to even have a page on misconduct at all?

The issue of police misconduct should be a major topic, as it has implications that go far beyond wikipedia. Remember, these persons are sworn to uphold the law, and as I recall, one cannot uphold the law by breaking it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.62.111.55 (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of facts or misdeeds. This isn't an article, it's an undigested list of whatever bad thing has happened with respect to the LVPD. It could easily be rewritten to comply with policies on the naming on non-notable people who have been accused of crimes by summarizing without naming and shaming, but in the meantime I've removed line items that clearly violate the policy on biographies of living persons.  Once again, see WP:BLP, WP:BLP1E, WP:CRIME and WP:PERP: these are policies, and there's no need to make an indiscriminate list and name names in violation of those policies. The article was split because it amounted to undue weight in the main article, as it overwhelmed the primary topic in violation of WP:UNDUE. At the time I pulled it out I noted that a similar or longer list could be compiled concerning any major metropolitan police force: certainly the LAPD and NYPD could go on for ever, even without off-duty, disciplinary and misdemeanor events. As noted above, there have also been problems with copyright violations. Please do not add back information about anyone who hasn't been documented to have been convicted of a crime. To enphasize this I've added a tag at the top of the page.   Acroterion   (talk)   00:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

NPOV violation?
I have tagged this article as having a NPOV issue. I looked at it again when someone asked me to fix the POV issue with the title and I don't see how. Maybe that could be addressed with a rename to List of incidents involving the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department but then we have to include all of the cases where there was no misconduct found. But that would address the NPOV issues after a major rewrite and cleanup. Consideration needs to be given to the entire definition section which is clearly out of bounds on NPOV and is meant to position the article to reflect badly on the police department. Given how bad other organizations are, one can also ask why single out one department with an article like this? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * That is a bit of a straw man, I think. Just because we cannot make a page on every police department does not mean we ought not to make a page on this misconduct of any department. What I find remarkable, if you will permit me to go a bit off-topic, is that this information is published in the newspapers, and then it seems to go away. We presume there were incidents of misconduct in 1962, but they left no paper trail. Pages like this help to preserve our history. Pages like these seem to serve a need. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 02:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. "Given how bad other organizations are" is textbook WP:OTHERSTUFF. I am removing the NPOV template, this is a well sourced and accurate piece. aqwfyj Talk/Contribs 13:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)