Talk:Albuquerque Police Department

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DOJ and Consent Decree[edit]

Should there not be a section now that includes the DOJ's investigations of APD's unjustified use of excessive force?
There is the same section of the Ferguson Police Department page highlighting the issues that are clearly apparent in Albuquerque as well?
They also have a section for incidents, while small, I do no see an argument for "undue weight" the incidents within APD should also be reported on.
WO (talk) 02:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rank Structure[edit]

The rank structure specified is no longer accurate. There is now a rank of Assistant Chief below Chief and above Deputy Chief. Also a new rank of Major has been instated; above Captain. Where Area Commanders fit in the new structure is unclear.

As for the Rank Insignia Box Chart, now: Assistant Chief is 3 stars, Deputy Chief is 2 stars, Major is an oak leaf. Commander is unknown ?? Other ranks and insignia remain the unchanged.

Recent Events[edit]

I recently organized this article:
-department of justice investigation is its own section
-much of the content in the history section has been moved to the use of force section (perhaps this should be its own article)
-I elaborated on the recent shootings and protests in March 2014
-I fixed many of the references
-updated statistics values
-fixed typos
-included references for recent events

Note:
-This article needs more information on the history of APD.
-This article is biased, and focuses too heavily on the excessive use of force (again, perhaps this should be its own article)
-More info is needed on the recent Redwine incident
-More info could be included on the March 30 protest
Apogalacticon (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

Why is this article listed in both Category:Law enforcement agencies of New Mexico and Category:Municipal police departments of New Mexico? Should it not just be in Category:Municipal police departments of New Mexico? Is this something to do with Template:Infobox law enforcement agency/autocat geography which needs fixing? --Bejnar (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is fixed, by turning off automatic categorization, but the the template still needs fixing. --Bejnar (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If James Boyd is relevant enough to land a spot on this page, why can't the other victims be just as important? AC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aprilchacon (talk • contribs) 23:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Police Chief[edit]

Can someone add something about the reported retirement of the police chief? Thanks! 66.254.239.121 (talk) 01:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about Gorden Eden? 24.97.201.230 (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After googling, I think you're talking about Ray Schultz, who retired as police chief. I added that in under History. 24.97.201.230 (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NYT description of APD[edit]

I'm not sure where to put this, but the New York Times saying "echoing an overwhelming sentiment in this city, which is that the police are not to be trusted" is a pretty damning description of the APD by its owners. (Officials Urge Calm as Protests Take a Turn in Albuquerque, March 31, 2014.) Int21h (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Controversies and Undue Weight[edit]

While having a "controversy" section at all lends itself to undue weight, having 6 separate sections on chronologically related controversies does so even more. This page is currently simply a line-by-line history of every tawdry event in the APB over the last 4 years. I have collapsed them all into a single section. BlueSalix (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your version add excessive weight and asserts things not really supported in the reports - your story does not even mention the Albuquerque Police Officers Association (APOA) and reports on a primary newspaper survey supported only my that papers storyMosfetfaser (talk) 16:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What does it assert that is not supported in the reports? Here's the thing - a Wikipedia article is not a laundry list of scandal. Having an article on a government agency with 8 sections, 6 of which are a blow-by-blow listing of scandals, is undue weight. BlueSalix (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, I had to separate your story to expose it for what it was, a story of undue weight and vague assertions and throwing everything in a pot to stir it up. Mosfetfaser (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the second time, what were the "vague assertions"? Also, I don't know how to word this more politely - so accept my advance apologies - but I don't think you understand what WP:UNDUE is. BlueSalix (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My edits to neutralize your story speak for themselves, have a good read of your story (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albuquerque_Police_Department&diff=607426730&oldid=605034277#2010-2014_Controversies) and then read mine. I am a neutral here, I wrote both Alfred Redwine shooting and James Boyd shooting. How do you think revert editing with me and then giving a warning note on my chatpage and then immediately officially reporting me is going to assist discussion? Mosfetfaser (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We're not here to 'neutralize' other editors. This is not BattleWiki. I also note you didn't make any substantive edits to my contribution, you simply separated it out into 6 different sections, while keeping the same text. We can't have an article on a government agency with 8 sections, 6 of which are descriptions of a related scandal - in many cases consisting of just a single sentence. BlueSalix (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
for example, You wrote this; The following month, several hundred Albuquerque residents protested against police in a tumultuous demonstration that ended with the deployment of tear gas and scattered clashes between police and protesters. Mayor Richard Berry said the protest had been sidelined by a smaller group within the larger demonstration that was determined to create havoc
what was it about? 'tumultuous' is also inflammatory story telling imo - you had it so vague I just had to explain what it was about - so I sectioned it and added link to the wikia article about it and created - James Boyd demonstration
In March 2014 several hundred Albuquerque residents protested against the police shooting and killing of James Boyd in a demonstration that ended with the deployment of tear gas and scattered clashes between police and protesters. Mayor Richard Berry said the protest had been sidelined by a smaller group within the larger demonstration that was determined to create havoc. Mosfetfaser (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple RS describe it as "chaotic" (here - [[1]] and 13 other places). If you would prefer we substitute "tumultuous" with "chaotic" I'm happy to do that, though the two words are synonyms of each other. Also, please AGF and desist from accusing other editors of "story telling" and similar accusatory and disparaging language. Finally, I keep having to edit your comments to make them inline with the discussion. Kindly make sure you keep your comments threaded for ease of reading and don't just throw them up in any random place.BlueSalix (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
your link is to a npr.org/blogs - blogs are not reportable here are they? I do not mind what we report, as long as it it done neutrally, wikia should not be a voice-piece for activism. Mosfetfaser (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Personal blogs are not RS; news reporting sections of traditional media branded as "blogs" are absolutely RS. Additionally, as I mentioned, 13 other sources use "chaotic" including the Washington Post [[2]]. Wikipedia is not a place for activism. We can't have an article on a government agency with 8 sections, 6 of which are descriptions of a related scandal - in many cases consisting of just a single sentence. Please cease edit warring to push this. BlueSalix (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The edits I made to the article are are not pushing anything. Feel free to request additional input - Mosfetfaser (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's, unfortunately, impossible to request a RfC while one party is edit warring. BlueSalix (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
this was the sorry state of the story when I found it a couple of weeks ago - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albuquerque_Police_Department&diff=603891130&oldid=603891007 - Mosfetfaser (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your work on the article. Please do not edit war or use Wikipedia as a platform for social activism, no matter how well intentioned or lauditory. You can review WP:UNDUE for additional information, however, criticism sections generally become troll magnets over time by encouraging the addition of every single negative item that can be cited, giving undue weight. It is much better to integrate negative and positive material in a more organic way. We also don't have sections that consist of single sentences as you are aggressively proposing. There's no reason for more than 3 or 4 concisely worded, well-referenced sections in an article on a small-city police department. BlueSalix (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You created the controversy section, not me - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albuquerque_Police_Department&diff=607426730&oldid=605034277#2010-2014_Controversies - Mosfetfaser (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, you created 6 controversy sections. Having an article on a government agency with 8 sections, 6 of which are a blow-by-blow listing of scandals, is undue weight. (The fact the word "controversy" is not in the title of your controversy sections is irrelevant.) We should have no controversy section at all, rather a "history" section that includes controversial episodes, when warranted. I was planning on making this change prior to your decision to begin edit warring. At this time work on the article has effectively frozen as a result of your edit war, as you have made clear any change will be subject to immediate revert, and pending its resolution. BlueSalix (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I fully and clearly explained what the details you added were actually about - you failed to do that. User:BlueSalix, feel free to actually write something decent here, I will be happy for that. Go for it, make it a good article. Mosfetfaser (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having an article on a government agency with 8 sections, 6 of which are a blow-by-blow listing of scandals, is WP:UNDUE. As per your note, it is currently impossible for me or anyone to contribute to the article due to your decision to unilaterally revert all contributions to your WP:UNDUE version in violation of 3RR. BlueSalix (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote, In November 2012, a survey of Albuquerque police officers - who did the survey, you didn't mention that? the detail that it was the police union and the the police union was also making the payouts to the police officers is really important and requires detailing. Mosfetfaser (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's sourced in the RS, here: [[3]]. Feel free to add that in, if you like; good addition, IMO. Do not feel free to repeatedly delete 4 paragraphs of text in violation of 3RR. Also, I have had to once again correct your above comment to properly thread the comment. Please take care to properly indent your comments. This is not a race. BlueSalix (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BlueSalix - as you are saying you will improve the content I have replaced your content for you to edit - Mosfetfaser (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop unilaterally reverting edits. This will need to be reviewed at ANI before further edits occur. Also, PLEASE correctly indent your comments. This is the fourth time I've requested you do so. If you need help learning WP, just ask. Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BlueSalix, please assume good faith here. He has stopped reverting; undoing his own revert to restore your version is showing good faith, not being disruptive. Jsharpminor (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jsharpminor, please review WP:AOBF. Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restructuring of Article[edit]

After reviewing other articles for U.S. city police departments, I have divided the article into three sections: (1) History, (2) Rank Structure, and, (3) Operations. I have also uploaded a CC photo I found on Flickr. There are two historical incidents I have not had an opportunity to insert full citations for yet (1971 riot and police shootings, and the early history of the Marshal's office), and will attempt to do that in the next couple days; feel free to add citation tags, but kindly don't delete these passages in the next 48 hours. Kindly also expand these if you have information to do so. I am happy to discuss alternate structures or submit anything to RfC. BlueSalix (talk) 02:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ta for your improving edits. I don't see you addressing any of my stated concerns regarding your authorship content of the Modern era section - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albuquerque_Police_Department#Modern_Era - have you finished improving that section ? If you are happy with it and finished improving it I will begin to edit it myself in an effort to improve it further.Mosfetfaser (talk) 07:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What were your concerns? You self-reverted the 6 separate sections for a variety of one-off incidents you had wanted so I'm not clear what concerns you have that remain, other than noting the 2012 morale survey was union-sponsored, which I incorporated. Feel free to describe your concerns, however. BlueSalix (talk) 08:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Albuquerque Police Department. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restore deleted material?[edit]

About a year ago, this article was cut nearly in half over a span of about three weeks. You can see the difference here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albuquerque_Police_Department&type=revision&diff=607507189&oldid=603891130). Does anyone object to restoring the deleted material? Maurreen (talk) 02:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CIT news[edit]

Maurreen (talk) 04:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Albuquerque 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strike[edit]

There ought to be something about the 1975 police strike. 2600:100C:B236:3569:0:48:CC01:2501 (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Albuquerque_Police_Department&oldid=1198355941"