Talk:Sacramento County Sheriff's Office

Sheriffs of Sacramento County(1850-present)...
OK, simple...in the entry "California State Police", I mentioned that Duane Lowe(the last CSP Chief) was Sacramento County Sheriff from 1967-1974;can any Wikipedian in the Sacramento area remember when Duane's term as Sheriff actually was?...thanks...Michaela92399 02:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I was only guessing those years of service...sorry...Michaela92399 02:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SacSheriffsLogo.png
Image:SacSheriffsLogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 16:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Page move
I recently moved the page back to its original title, that is, to the name of the department, without the state of California in its title. This is its official and common name, and is in line with other police and sheriff's departments (Los Angeles Police Department, not Los Angeles, California Police Department, etc) in the state and elsewhere. Please discuss such major moves first, especially if they deviate from the norm. Int21h (talk) 02:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I (again) oppose the recent move, that (again) was done by the same user without discussion. The discussion on WikiProject Law Enforcement was not a consensus (4:2), especially with one of the 4 saying this page should be moved back because there is no other Sacramento County Sheriff, and the relevant convention clearly states pre-disambiguation shall not be carried out "in the event of the jurisdiction name being a natural part of the subject's name". Int21h (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe the disambiguation should stand. Wikipedia is an international site, many users probably have no idea where Sacramento is.  Just because some United States users do, we should not assume it is universally known.  The relevant convention sited above would give credence to my view:
 * The standard practice shall be to pre-disambiguate in the format Articlename articlename (Jurisdictionname) 
 * The exception sited by Int21h appears to apply to countries or internationally known cities:
 * Pre-disambiguation shall not be carried out:
 * * in the event of the jurisdiction name being a natural part of the subject's name, e.g. Statistics New Zealand, Canada Border Services Agency, Royal Australian Navy, Minister of Canadian Heritage.
 * * in the event that the suffix "of Jurisdictionname" is a natural part of the subject's name and/or is the overwhelmingly-utilized means of disambiguating in common speech, e.g. Cabinet of Germany, Prime Minister of Japan, Treasurer of Australia. Care shall be taken to avoid Something of Something of Jurisdictionname constructions.
 * * in the event that a proper noun within the natural name of the subject unmistakably identifies it with a particular jurisdiction, e.g. Mount Fuji Conservation Authority, Ministry for Paris and Lyon Affairs, State Secretary responsible for Hindi standardization (NB: artificial examples).
 * I do not think Sacramento is universally known, it is certainly not unmistakably in California. There is a Sacramento in Kentucky, in Brazil, one in Mexico, and one in Uruguay.  Perhaps other countries are unfamiliar with the county concept, or language interferes with comprehension.  The identification of the state in which Sacramento is located does not detract from the article or create confusion, so the problem evades me.


 * Also, the geographical understanding in the United States appears lacking. CNN reported that 6 months after Katrina, 33 percent of Americans could not point to Louisiana on a map! and half the 18-24 year olds could not find New York! Leaving the state in the title would seem a good idea.  I think we should leave it there. SGT141 (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The section I cite is not for "countries or internationally known cities". It is for articles where "the jurisdiction name being a natural part of the subject's name". There is a large difference. This is particularly relevant because the jurisdiction is a natural part of the article's name. (Which is Sacramento County. Not California. Not the United States.)


 * Also, I do not not think Mount Fuji, Lyon, and Hindi are universally known, either. (I didn't know about them before I was on Wikipedia for a while. Or before I took French ;) In fact, I would hazard to say almost nothing is "universally" known. That isn't the standard (for example, see Los Angeles Police Department, not Los Angeles Police Department (California)). Putting California in the title only helps Americans, anyway. If they want to know where it is, read the article. Not all information needs to be in the title. And this only needlessly clutters the article's link; now, whenever something wikilinks here, it will show up as Sacramento County Sheriff's Department (California), which for most cases must be aliased for continuity in readability.


 * The move was premature, and against best practices for doing so without discussion. There has been discussion, but only in response to undiscussed moves, as was my plea for discussion. Unfortunately, no one saw this request (which predates the WikiProject discussion by more than a year). If push comes to shove I will force a mediation (and let the gurus sort it out) because this at the moment is the one of the only articles that has this type of "pre-disambiguation" of all the local and county-level government agencies/departments/entities in California, and I believe this is so for a reason. (See w:Category:Los Angeles County, California for example.) Int21h (talk) 03:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem to be saying that this article is one of the only law enforcement articles relating to California that has this pre-disambiguation. That is not correct.  Virtually all the California law enforcement articles do have this type of title.  The exceptions seem to be Los Angeles and San Francisco.  Perhaps it was believed that these two cities were sufficiently well known.  I don't know.  But not having the pre-disambiguation is the exception here rather than the norm.  This also holds true for the other 49 states.  Perhaps New York City is another example, but it is, again, not the norm.  All other NY articles appear to be pre-disambiguated - List of law enforcement agencies in New York.


 * Also, editing your links would seem a normal function. I see no reason that the titles should be created for ease of linkage.  Just edit them when writing.SGT141 (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I wasn't referring to "law enforcement articles relating to California" but to "the local and county-level government agencies/departments/entities in California". Quite a difference, and I'm quite correct. The pre-disambiguation policy you are claiming would be true all of them, which I think is an incorrect interpretation, and is a detriment to these particular articles. The "local and county-level government agencies/departments/entities in California" either need pre-disambiguation, or they don't. I think they don't, and that would seem the norm. These law enforcement articles obviously fit under that category. And it would seem that you or Ninetyone have moved most of the articles to which you are referring, so I would guess that either you or Ninetyone should know why they weren't moved. My previous statements still stand. Int21h (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And again, this article is not Articlename articlename (Jurisdictionname) but now Jurisdictionname Articlename (Jurisdictionname). Int21h (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Balance/NPOV in History Section
Having the entire history section consist of nothing but alleged incidents of misconduct that have occurred since 1998 is grossly unbalanced- both from an NPOV and a chronological perspective. First of all, surely there have been verifiable activities by the Department other than abusing prisoners in the period since 1998? Basic facts are also missing- when was the force created, how is it funded, etc. In an article this short, documenting every single incidence of alleged abuse gives undue weight to concerns about abuse in the department. Finally, the entire article is sourced from the Sacramento Bee, with the exception of one article, and as of today all of the links except for the SF Chronicle/AP article are broken. --Clay Collier (talk) 10:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As to the "unbalanced" concern, there is a remedy: add more. (Very simple, no?) As to the "from an NPOV ... perspective" part, um... Huh? So are the sections NPOV or not? If they are, then how can they be non-NPOV? They literally cite cold-hard facts from the articles, so I believe they are NPOV. And if "there have been verifiable activities by the Department other than abusing prisoners in the period since 1998" why havn't you found and added them? Again, as to the "Basic facts are also missing", cite your source(s) of information, otherwise I can asume they're not. Somehow, just somehow, I doubt this is "every single incidence of alleged abuse"; I find it hard to believe an entire internal affairs department does nothing day after day for years on end. As to the "undue weight" concern, this is your opinion, and I disagree. As to the fact that the "entire article is sourced from the Sacramento Bee", this, again, could be remedied by adding material not from the Sacramento Bee, if it exists. I have spent days looking and could find no more. As to the "all of the links except for the SF Chronicle/AP article are broken" comment, the links have been removed until they can be corrected. I believe the core of your concern is that the article is a stub article: you can help Wikipedia by expanding it. Int21h (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Divisions links are broken. Lead to 404 error page
I will try to update all those links in that section because all of them are broken linked now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themichaeljones (talk • contribs) 05:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I updated all the division links based on information from the Sheriff's web site. Markinsac (talk) 23:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

June 2010 hostage situation
I think someone should post section on the July 8 - July 10 hostage situation that occured since it was considered a huge event for Sheriff and participating agencies (which included: CHP, FBI, Folsom PD, Metro Fire, Sac County office of Emergency Services, Red Cross, Concord PD). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.12.212.148 (talk) 05:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Sacramento County Sheriff's Department. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071128042044/http://dwb.sacbee.com:80/content/news/projects/watchdog/jail/story/13802789p-14644085c.html to http://dwb.sacbee.com/content/news/projects/watchdog/jail/story/13802789p-14644085c.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Sacramento County Sheriff's Department. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071128075028/http://dwb.sacbee.com:80/content/news/projects/watchdog/jail/story/14234392p-15055941c.html to http://dwb.sacbee.com/content/news/projects/watchdog/jail/story/14234392p-15055941c.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071106012516/http://dwb.sacbee.com:80/content/news/projects/watchdog/jail/ to http://dwb.sacbee.com/content/news/projects/watchdog/jail/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sacramento County Sheriff's 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/20071128084235/http://dwb.sacbee.com:80/content/news/projects/watchdog/jail/story/13807194p-14648335c.html to http://dwb.sacbee.com/content/news/projects/watchdog/jail/story/13807194p-14648335c.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080214141429/http://dwb.sacbee.com:80/content/news/projects/watchdog/jail/story/13798655p-14632251c.html to http://dwb.sacbee.com/content/news/projects/watchdog/jail/story/13798655p-14632251c.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) 15:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

more misconduct, 3 cases by officer Pfeifer beating people for no reason with his flashlight, etc.
source: http://filmingcops.com/cop-beats-man-stomps-head-asking-move-car/ http://filmingcops.com/cop-beats-man-stomps-head-asking-move-car//2/ Video here