Talk:National Fraternal Order of Police/Archives/2019

Only unflattering facts can be used?
reversed edits I did to this page. I am disappointed that only critical information can be put on this article, even unsourced. If only folks of a particular political persuasion can express themselves by controlling the flow of fact, then this entire site loses legitimacy. To wit:

Abuse

Never forget that one takes full responsibility for any action performed using Twinkle. One must understand Wikipedia policies and use this tool within these policies or risk having one's account blocked. Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used.

Based on statements by this admin on his own pages, there appears a case can be made that many of the edits are political vandalism, powered by rigid ideology and authority as an admin. --BobiusPrime (talk) 01:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This is Wikipedia. We include verifiable information without giving undue weight to promotional or marketing claims. Your edits introduced a great deal of peacock language using affiliated or primary sources, and removed well-sourced criticism. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I am indeed an "inexperienced editor of Wikipedia," but not inexperienced at editing. I actively read criticisms in order to better learn the nuances of Wikipedia.  Unfortunately, your criticism of peacock language is not applicable based on the reference provided.  Obtaining information from the source organization explaining their activities is not promotion or marketing. As for the removal of the unsourced information,  I can find no policy prohibiting my actions.  If I have missed it, please provide the appropriate reference. --BobiusPrime (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * In your view, as an inexperienced editor of Wikipedia. Consider the possibility that I may have more experience of this than you do, after more than a dozen years, with hundreds of thousands of edits to tens of thousands of articles. Guy (Help!) 23:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As an "experienced" editor, I would expect constructive criticism and links to relevant guides within Wikipedia, not pomposity and self-flatulence. Your opinion and disagreement, to the extend you revert another user's work, should be based on verifiable rules, decisions, and policies that are cited as your justification.  Your continued claim that I am "inexperience" may not convince your administrator contemporaries that you are correct and justified in your actions.  This need not be a visceral discussion. --BobiusPrime (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Free clue: on Wikipedia, asking for help and explanation usually works better than asserting that you have read our entire MoS and policy category and understand the matter better than long--standing admins do. Guy (Help!) 01:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the validation. It was...helpful. --BobiusPrime (talk) 01:13, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The well-sourced criticism was not removed. The unverifiable items were deleted, as "This is Wikipedia." There cannot be "undue weight" given to information that cannot even be published. --BobiusPrime (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * In your view, as an inexperienced editor of Wikipedia, with few contributions outside this topic. And I disagree. Guy (Help!) 08:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Criticism
Human rights group Amnesty International has criticized the Fraternal Order of Police in Philadelphia for their vocal support of the death penalty in the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has called the FOP a "fringe organization" for opposing his efforts to repeal the Tiahrt Amendment.

Removed from article until references are posted. --Neutralitytalk 03:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just wondering, what exactly do you mean, "posted"? Thanks. --DerRichter (talk) 07:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)