Talk:New Westminster Police Department

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on New Westminster 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121109035940/http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=312b750a-50da-43d7-87eb-80eb6cb6e6b6 to http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=312b750a-50da-43d7-87eb-80eb6cb6e6b6
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308205340/http://www.news1130.com/news/local/more.jsp?content=20090227_200855_5436 to http://www.news1130.com/news/local/more.jsp?content=20090227_200855_5436

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 10:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Editing on this page reported in Delta Optimist

FYI - Editing on this page has been covered in the Delta Optimist[1].--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

We need to provide up-to-date, open honest, transparent information to the public, instead of information with bias.

Concerns over the content of"Controversy" on "New Westminster Police Department" page

I suggest that the "Controversy" part on the "New Westminster Police Department page" should be removed.

I personally believe that the incident of 3 off-duty police officer has nothing to do with Police Departments. That was the 3 off-duty police officers' personal behaviors.

First, the Police Departments’ managers didn’t tell them to go somewhere to assault somebody. Why Wikipedia always emphasize the NWPD? As if the New Westminster Police Department's Top cop taught him to do that.

Second, the incident happened when they were off duty, in their spare time, which was their personal behaviors.

Third, Police officers are human beings, so it is easily understood that they may have alcohol drink after work. Shouldn’t Police officers make a little mistake only because they are police officers? It is unfair. Police officers are also human beings.

I give you an example. Suppose you are a mother with 3 children, and your 3 children went outside to play. For some reason, they were fighting with other guys. Why they were fighting only with those guys, not others? There must be some reasons. And media always accuse you. Especially Wikipedia emphasizes your name with this incident for 10 more years. People who view Wikipedia all know your name and they all mistakenly think that you are a not good mother who taught your children to have that kind of incident. Did you tell them to do that? Absolutely not. No mother will do that. Then what do you think about Wikipedia??? Do you ask Wikipedia to correct or do you accept it???

In the world, there are many things happen every day. Why doesn't Wikipedia focus on other events? Why does Wikipedia give overladen focus on BC Police Departments?

I can give Wikipedia some suggestions. Wikipedia can focus more on how Marilyn Monroe died, and why Princess Diana died. That entertainment news relating to American former President and British Royal Family are more popular than police officers.

(1) The reason why Marilyn Monroe died is that she slept around two Kennedy.

    It is not something related to who was more powerful, it is something related to men's dignity. 

(2) The reason why Princess Diana died is that she ruined the image of the Royal Family.

    Her behaviors made the Royal Family extremely awkward. 
    She could choose to fight with her rival for Prince Charles, and people would view it as entertainment. 
    However, she chose to give media improper remarks.

I suggest Wikipedia gives more attention to American former President, instead of police. The brilliant image of police officers is helpful for the stability of society.

One most important thing I need to mention is that the New Westminster Police Department is a really good Police Department. The current Chief Constable is a really good person. the officers there are all reasonable and respectful. Previous and current Chief Constables there all make contributions on good training to their officers. This is a fact!!! If only because of a previous staff's a little mistake, make the department has a bad reputation, it is unfair to them!!!!!! I believe that there must be a lot of positive reports relating to them. Why Wikipedia only keep the negative report instead of the positives?KathleenKathleen12345 (talk) 17:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

What is your relation to the topic in question? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay so I take it you are related to the individual in question per your comment on my talk page? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Just for the sake of the record, despite the poor attempts by the user in question at engagement on this matter, I've attempted to distil the various arguments that are being made and provide responses to them below:

I personally believe that the incident of 3 off-duty police officer has nothing to do with Police Departments. That was the 3 off-duty police officers' personal behaviors.

That is true, but they were police officers at the time and there is a strong public interest in knowing that police officers have engaged in criminal behaviour.

the Police Departments’ managers didn’t tell them to go somewhere to assault somebody. Why Wikipedia always emphasize the NWPD? As if the New Westminster Police Department's Top cop taught him to do that.

Nowhere in the article has it been suggested that the initial incident, or the response, was in any way connected to a culture of inappropriate or criminal behaviour by police officers, or that this behaviour is tactility or even explicitly minimised/ignored by management.

the incident happened when they were off duty, in their spare time, which was their personal behaviors.

That is noted. They were still police officers, so there is still a strong public interest in it's inclusion.

Police officers are human beings, so it is easily understood that they may have alcohol drink after work. Shouldn’t Police officers make a little mistake only because they are police officers? It is unfair. Police officers are also human beings.

There would be no public interest in including content about police officers having an alcoholic drink after work if they hadn't then gone on to racially abuse, assault and rob a delivery driver.

In the world, there are many things happen every day. Why doesn't Wikipedia focus on other events? Why does Wikipedia give overladen focus on BC Police Departments? I can give Wikipedia some suggestions. Wikipedia can focus more on how Marilyn Monroe died, and why Princess Diana died. That entertainment news relating to American former President and British Royal Family are more popular than police officers.

Wikipedia contains over 6.1 million pages of encyclopedic content, of which 1 contains a mention of this event. You are free to go and edit other pages if you'd like, though I suggest learning more about how we use consensus first.

I suggest Wikipedia gives more attention to American former President, instead of police. The brilliant image of police officers is helpful for the stability of society.

And there remains a strong public interest, and encyclopedic value, in informing the reader where that brilliant image has been tarnished. ninety:one 12:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:Undue weight for 2009 controversy

The "controversy" section seems pretty big given the size of the article.

Perhaps someone with access to a local public library can expand the article by adding more details about the department's history. For example, HOW was the department affected by the Great Fire of 1898, the bank theft in 1911, etc.?

A section on current and past highly-visible police initiatives would be helpful, as would a brief list of any high-profile investigations that this department led.

Most of the details in the "controversy" section can probably be streamlined. For example, the corresponding section in West Vancouver Police Department is smaller and less detailed, while keeping all of the references. That said, the September 2019 incident with COI-editing of Wikipedia should stay. As a side-note, I hope whoever it was from the department that ran that account understands the meaning of "Streissand effect". If they didn't then, they should now. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC) Updated with strike to correct bad editing, should have removed it before saving. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it may be appropriate to mention this controversy, but I agree the weight is extremely undue. The controversy currently makes up about half of the article. Also we are supposed to avoid WP:CSECTIONs. I think this section needs to be paired down, and information about other parts of the department's history, structure etc. need to be added.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

We have reached a consensus for the change in the article. Thank you!!!KathleenKathleen12345 (talk) 04:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't think we do have consensus. I do not agree with this edit removing all of the information. I simply think it should be paired down, and other information about other aspects of the department's history should be ADDED to balance this content and ensure it is not given too much prominence.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 04:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Darryl Kerrigan, agree I've just reverted. Trimming is definitely appropriate. No one is in agreement that all the content get removed entirely Glen (talk) 05:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I also disagree. It can be pared down, but not removed wholesale. I also don't trust anyone who seems to be astroturfing for User:NWPD media's desired edits. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 05:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:AVOIDVICTIM and WP:BLP might also require us to remove the names/personal details of otherwise non-notable people.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

Collapse tangential commentay so as to make it less visible and avoid drawing attention to it
I do love a man in uniform. The New Westminster Police Department communications team using their smartphone to do some Wikipedia editing

• Until the NWPD stuck their porky fingers in the pie, the incident warranted at most a sentence and an argument could have been made that it didn't need to be mentioned at all. Not anymore, since they've managed to make themselves the story [2]. Good work, team! EEng 13:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

  This comes across very badly now. Multiple sources - local and national - comment on the two officers charged for assualt, and one single local paper covers the minor issue that they made a small number of edits to this article. Yet we focus on the latter, and almost put the former as an aside. That they tried to edit here and were reverted doesn't even seem worth mentioning. Compared to assault, it certainly shouldn't be the focus. - Bilby (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

  I've got to agree with Bilby here, and the current wording is reminiscent of naval-gazing. The article used as a reference uses the term "scrub" while our non-neutral summary uses "censor" and "purge". It seems that the police editor thought the section gave undue weight to the misconduct of one off-duty officer and they were correct. The account was blocked for a username violation which is quite common. Now it looks like we are punishing and humiliating the department for trying to edit the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and then festooning the talk page with a Keystone Cops photo and pejorative adjectives like "porky" . Come on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

  The current wording also mentions two officers convicted but does not clarify that only one of those officers worked for this particular department. We can do better. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

  Disagree 180°. I didn't read the sources on the assault charges and so on (and maybe you two can find something that changes what I'm about to say) but based on our article as it stood, I don't see how what these officers did relates to the department. If we had sources explaining that this was part of a pattern of officer misbehavior, lenient treatment by the department, or whitewash, we'd report that. But AFAICS there were no such sources – until last year. The attempted whitewash definitely is about the department and definitely belongs in the article.

  I don't think scrub carries any less connotation, in context, of censorship than does purge (or even censor itself) but in deference to your comment I've changed the wording to scrub.

  You know me – I may wrap my serious point in a bit of fun, but it's still a serious point. With a completely straight face I believe that the scrubbing is the only actual fact worth including (though unavoidably, including it requires mentioning the underlying incident), and that's why I made the edit I did. (As mentioned, if sources say anything about how the incident reflects on the department, then we should add that material too.) In parallel, here on the talk page, I've got no problem admitting I'm thumbing my nose at the stumblebums who thought they could get away with such ham-handed attempt. However, in response to your concerns I've collapsed the images to make them less prominent and noticeable.

  EEng 22:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)