Talk:Peter Newsham

POV?
I've added more content to add additional context to the article. I know wp discourages "drive by tagging" so without additional explanation of what's unbalanced about the entry, I'm removing the tag. Additional discussion is welcome here. Bangabandhu (talk) 02:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Information.svg|35px]] As fellow admins and  have said, this article falls well short of meeting our BLP requirements due to serious NPOV issues, so much so as to verge on an attack page intending solely to disparage. Although sources are cited, they are selectively used in an unbalanced fashion. For example, none of the positive statements contained in cite #1 ("An Interview with Peter Newsham, D.C.'s Top Cop") were mentioned, only the negative.


 * As another example of lack of balance, the Associated Press dispatch covering his appointment, which stated "Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser was impressed with the job Newsham did as interim chief, particularly with the inauguration and the Women’s March on Washington, and offered him the job on a permanent basis. The D.C. Council voted 12-1 on Tuesday to confirm Newsham. Independent Council member David Grosso was the only member to vote against his confirmation‎", was ignored. (ref: Newsham confirmed as chief of DC police", May 2, 2017)‎.
 * Although this person meets our notability requirements for inclusion, this Wikipedia article as written does not and extensive re-writing is essential if it is to be retained. JGHowes   talk  13:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback here. I've read through that interview and tried to incorporate additional facts. It's not clear to me how or why we'd include the quote that you highlight - Bowser was impressed with the job Newsham did as interim chief, particularly with the inauguration and the Women’s March on Washington. That's one opinion, and it's obviously biased as its coming from the person who hired Newsham. Without mentioning opposing views, it seems unbalanced. And adding the views contrasting would only add more weight to these relatively minor issues - the subject's performance during the inauguration and the Women's March on Washington (which are of questionable relevance, as inclusion of every major operation by MPD is outside the scope of this article). Bangabandhu (talk) 16:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I added the Washington Times/ACLU cite you suggested. I'm unsure how to handle this content - A leading civil-rights attorney had urged the council not to confirm Newsham. Including that without the name of the individual is questionable, so I've added a cite about the ACLU and their position on the nomination. Bangabandhu (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

My two cents on improving POV
I propose that we purge information from the article that includes Newsham only via a standard press statement. For example, the last two paragraphs of the Chief of Police section:
 * In March 2019, MPDC handcuffed a 10-year-old child who was near an armed robbery investigation.[14] Newsham did not condemn the tactic and said that it was important to make decisions on a case by case basis.[14]
 * In September 2019, data released by MPDC found significant disparities among stops by officers. African Americans accounted for 70% of all police stops while D.C. is 47% African American.[15] Newsham disputed whether the data, taken over a four week period, was representative. MPDC delayed collection of the data and released it after compelled by court order.[15]

These would fit better into an article on the department. Newsham's responses, as frustrating or inappropriate as they may be, are fairly standard as far as media comments by major police chiefs go. The controversy surrounding him is important to include, as it makes up a good chunk of available media coverage, but statements like these border on being off-topic and certainly do not help the problematic neutrality of the article.

I'd also like to mention that it's important to state legal information precisely. For example, I don't doubt that the girl mentioned was actually raped, but the article should still read that she reported being raped, as this is the claim made by the source. I've made some changes to the article to help with this, but there's likely more to be done. Thanks. Skeletor3000 (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestions, contributions, and improvements to language precision. I'm removing the content on controversies, as controversy sections are generally discouraged per WP:CSECTION Agree that passing references to Newsham probably don't merit inclusion, but he has played an active role in representing the department and its policies in the incidents you highlight. The sourcing for those incidents is not exhaustive. See here for his prominent role in the Washington Post's coverage of the handcuffed 10 year old. Bangabandhu (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. I've tried to find similar articles on other controversial law enforcement figures to see what the norm is for this kind of content. The most criticism contained in any such article I found was in Joe Arpaio. Obviously there's not enough content here to emulate that article, but it still might translate loosely as a model. Would it make sense to have a Career heading, and then present Newsham's public comments under one Public relations (just a possibility) subheading in list form, with one or more subheadings for prose about incidents that are covered in more depth? I'm not sure there's enough material to justify it, but it seems like there's more sources that could be added. The POV disputes might lessen if we include comments from himself or others made in his defense. I haven't found any yet, but I haven't gone too deep into any additional sources. Skeletor3000 (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The Arpaio entry is an interesting example. Sure, some might say WP:OSE but I think its quite relevant. I don't know how to read it, though - is it written NPOV? I'm sure Arpaio would rather accolades from the President than indepth, well-sourced paras about racial profiling, misspending, and jail conditions. I didn't go through the archives to see how editors are handling the questions that have been raised on this page, though its my impression at first glance that the Apraio entry is alright, as its got solid sourcing and an accurate reflection of the subject's actions. Which is my take on this page, too.Bangabandhu (talk) 14:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I didn't mean to point to it as an example of suitable content— just as a model for organization of info on this page if it continues to expand. Should have made that more clear when I pointed to it. Skeletor3000 (talk) 17:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm getting the sense that there might be concerns apart from organization, but no one else has been specific. I'm going to assume we've got consensus on the current version. Bangabandhu (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

BLP December 16 re-write
Re-written to address above npov and balance issues. [added]--> However, the portion of the Chief of Police section concerning recent events/controversies might be better merged with Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, specifically:
 * 2018, "whistleblower raised concerns that MPDC leadership were manipulating crime statistics by deliberately misclassifying violent crimes...."
 * "September 2019, data released by MPDC found significant disparities among stops by officers..."
 * 2018-2019 homicide rates.

As it is, with this solely in the chief's bio but unmentioned in the police department's Wikipedia article, there's the appearance of a WP:POVFORK here.  JGHowes   talk  16:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think all of those points are important and don't see any reason why they wouldn't be in both entries. You could make an argument that it might not have a place in MPD's as that entry spans decades, while Newsham's time as chief is years. Also, I support the edits you've made, though I wonder about possible undue weight on the WCP quote you've highlighted. Its one article, one author, without even the significance that might come with an oped. Bangabandhu (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ok, I've started a separate "Administration as Chief of Police (2017–present)" section in this article for notable events and issues during his administration as Chief.  JGHowes   talk  20:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Edited Page 20/1/20
I added a picture of the person from the DC Government website. DC Government works are public domain and made available with a Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal. . I also changed the bio to his official bio. Shit was too negative on this page. It was just attacking the man. So I added positive stuff to balance it out.
 * Please don't delete well sourced, relevant content. And make sure that the content you add is properly sourced - neither source you provided had his exact DOB. Bangabandhu (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it all relevant? This page is supposed to be a biography not an opinion piece. Also the photo of the Chief I put up should stay. It is a photo by the DC government and is essentially public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B00F:E875:DD4D:5E6B:4D99:EB0B (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The pic is in the article and will remain unless someone challenges its license. All of the content on the page is relevant, sourced from impartial, reliable sources, and has been scrutinized by many experienced editors, including myself. If you're the same contributor who started this thread, you should be advised of Wikipedia's policies against using multiple accounts. Bangabandhu (talk) 06:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The article as written is clearly a libelous attack piece. The edits listed below correct inaccurate information, provide context that is purposely left out, and provides balance.
This page is unbalanced and libelous in nature. The Career section begins with a reference to a 2002 mass arrest. The litigation in that case went on for 12 years. Newsham testified in front of the City Council and numerous times in publicly recorded court documents. Newsham's position on why he ordered the arrests was consistent throughout the 12 years of litigation. Newsham repeatedly took responsibility for the arrests and said that the arrests were ordered to prevent further property damage and injuries. Leaving Newsham's side out of this event is clearly done to paint Newsham in the most negative light. The article in the career section notes a criticism of Newsham for his handling of an 11 year olds rape case. The reported rape of the child occurred in 2008. Newsham's biography shows that he did not take over investigations until 2009. Internal police documents show that after Newsham took over investigations in 2009 and discovered the how the case was handled, he attempted to fire the detective involved. This noted criticism is clearly placed in the article to paint Newsham in a negative light. Prior to becoming Chief, Newsham was a finalist for the top police jobs in Ft. Meyers and Phoenix (Source Phoenix Police Chief Finalists Face Public Monday Night Author: Brahm Resnik Published: 5:55 PM MST June 6, 2016 Updated: 5:59 PM MST June 6, 2016 - Citizens get first look at Fort Myers police chief candidates Wednesday, June 15th 2016, 6:16 PM EDT Updated: Wednesday, June 15th 2016, 11:48 PM EDT) The inclusion of the note about the protestors at Newsham's confirmation hearing is unbalanced. There were five protestors and they were from organizations like "Stop Police Terror" which is an anti police advocasy group. The hearing was not suspended - it was paused until security was able to remove the protestors from the Council Chamber. Leaving this context out of the article suggests that the protest was much larger than it actually was, and doesn't describe the viewpoint of the group that was protesting. The quote from the City Paper is clearly placed in the article to embarass Newsham and is libelous ( while acknowledging his "personal history of domestic and alcohol abuse and a professional history stained by a high-profile mass arrest gone bad") - The insinuation that Newsham had a history of Domestic and alcohol abuse is not sourced. Newsham while going through a divorce and custody dispute was accused of domestic violence by his ex-wife in an ex parte order. The facts surrounding that allegation were fully heard by the courts and they found no evidence of domestic violence, and Newsham was awarded full custody of his two elementary school aged children. There is no source information to support the allegation that Newsham has a history of alcohol abuse. The reference in the quote to the Pershing Park arrest is addressed earlier in the career segment. The administration section is clearly written to describe Newsham's tenure as Chief in the most negative light. There are multiple accomplishments in his career listed below and sourced that are not included. There is a focus on homicide numbers and no information regarding the dramatic drops in other crimes that Newham has accomplished while Chief. The sentence that "Newsham was inadvertently caught on camera saying that he thought homicides would continue unabated.[19]" is a libelous un-sourced lie. The article that is cited makes no mention of Newsham being caught off camera saying anything. This was clearly added to paint Newsham in a negative light. Newsham has identified his priorities as chief to work on the Department's trust and legitimacy in the community, reducing violent crime particularly gun related violent crime, and improving officer wellness and working conditions (Committee on the Judiciary&Public Safety, Performance Oversight Hearing, Charles Allen, Chairperson March 5, 2020) .[7] One of Newsham's first moves as Chief was to bring the Special Liaison Unit of the Department under the Chief's Office. The Special Liaison Unit provides individualized police services to many of the under-served and minority communities in Washington, DC. including the LGBTQ, Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Latino, Asian and African communities. Mary Cheh a DC Council Member described the Special Liaison Unit as the "Gold Standard for how an urban police department can best serve its minority communities" (2017-01-13 Peter Newsham re Special Liaison ... - Mary Chehmarycheh.com › wp-content › uploads › 2017-01-13-Peter-Newsham)

NMAAHC Newsham also brought back the Officer Friendly Program to the Districts policing which included the re-creation of MPD's Side by Side Band, a musical band staffed entirely by sworn MPD officers.(By Peter Hermann May 15, 2018 at 6:35 p.m. EDT) The Side by Side Band Performs at various community events including assemblies at District of Columbia Elementary Schools In 2018 Newsham in consultation with the DC Police Union changed the uniforms that MPD Officers wear. The new uniforms not only looked better, but also were more comfortable and include a suspender system that redistributes the weight often carried on an officer's belt that can cause officer injuries (By Peter Hermann September 5, 2018 at 3:27 p.m. EDT) To ensure that MPD was in compliance with the District's NEAR Act, in September 2019, MPD released an unprecedented amount of data regarding stops made by officers. A subsequent report regarding stops in the District was again released by Newsham in March of 2020 (mpdc.dc.gov) The comprehensive data release illustrates the departments commitment to transparency. The report also includes next steps the agency will be taking to partner with researchers to identify what the District stop data should look like. In March 2019, MPD officers handcuffed a 10-year-old child who was identified by a victim of being involved in an armed robbery. The child was not arrested, but was turned over to his parents on the scene because of his age. [18] The incident received a great deal of media attention. In January of 2020, Newsham in consultation with the Office of the Attorney General, released a new policy on the treatment of juvenile offenders specifically addressing handcuffing. The policy changed an existing policy, and now directed officers not to handcuff children who were 12 years of age and under unless the were a danger to themselves or others. The policy also restricted handcuffing of some juveniles between the ages of 13 and 17, increased diversion opportunities for juveniles and gave direction which reduced the number of juvenile custodial arrests (mpdc.dc.gov - orders) (DC police will no longer handcuff children under the age of 12 ...www.fox5dc.com › news › dc-police-will-no-longer-handcuff-children-) Newsham has also has dramatically increased the size of MPD's Cadet Corps. The Cadet program is a program where MPD hires young men and women who attended DC High Schools between the ages of 17 and 24 who have an interest in a career in policing. The Cadets are hired, work part time for MPD, and attend The University of the District of Columbia at no cost. Once the Cadets have achieved the 60 college credits required to become officer, they matriculate into MPD's Police Academy as recruits. The program has been very beneficial no only at increasing the number of DC residents who become officers but also increased the number of women on the force. When Chief Newsham became Interim Chief in 2016 there were fewer than 30 Cadets. There are currently over 100, and the Mayor is proposing additional funds to increase the number to 200 in fiscal 2021 ( Major expansion of DC police Cadet Corps program proposed ...wtop.com › Local News) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14D:8400:330:A54B:735E:A091:ACFE (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Administrative note
This article has previously caught my eye as one that seems problematic, particularly with respect WP:ATTACK and WP:UNDUE. I will review within the next few days, and may impose administrative sanctions as necessary. BD2412 T 16:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have conducted a thorough administrative review of this article, which included adding substantial missing material and sources regarding specific high-profile matters, removing materials referenced to sources that contain no mention of the subject, and providing missing citations or improved citations to matters unreferenced in the article. Given the clearly contentious history of this topic, it is my determination that any further substantial and material changes to the article should be discussed on this talk page for development of consensus prior to implementation. Unsourced or poorly sourced material on this subject, whether positive or negative, will be removed swiftly per WP:BLP. BD2412  T 17:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)