Talk:Los Angeles Police Department

RfC: Should misconduct be mentioned in the lead?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a strong consensus to include a few sentences about controversies as part of a fully developed lead, based on these aspects being prominently and consistently covered in reliable sources. Some editors express concern that because the lead of the article is too short, adding the sentences would make it unbalanced. The solution is to expand the lead to cover all aspects in appropriate balance. I was asked on my user talk if this RfC close endorses a specific wording of how the controversies are to be discussed in the lead. It does not. Most of the comments were not specific enough to find a consensus for a particular wording. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 22:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

---

Should the lead note include 2-3 sentences that the LAPD has (1) a history of corruption, brutality and discriminatory policing, (2) a 2000 DOJ investigation found rampant racism, police brutality, and police corruption within the LAPD, and (3) the LAPD was subsequently placed under federal oversight from 2001 to 2013? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

References

• Chemerinsky, Erwin; Lhamon, Catherine; Rosenbaum, Mark (May 3, 2006). "The LAPD Still Needs Policing". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved February 13, 2021. The consent decree was crucial because, for decades, study after study had documented abuses by LAPD officers.
• Domanick, Joe (1994). To Protect and to Serve: The LAPD's Century of War in the City of Dreams. New York: Pocket Books. ISBN 978-0-671-75111-1. Retrieved March 3, 2021.
•  ———  (2015). Blue: The LAPD and the Battle to Redeem American Policing. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-1-4516-4107-3. Retrieved March 3, 2021.
• Escobar, Edward J. (1999). Race, Police, and the Making of a Political Identity: Mexican Americans and the Los Angeles Police Department, 1900–1945. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-21334-0.
• Felker-Kantor, Max (2018). Policing Los Angeles: Race, Resistance, and the Rise of the LAPD. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press. doi:10.5149/northcarolina/9781469646831.001.0001. ISBN 978-1-4696-4683-1. JSTOR 10.5149/9781469646855_felker-kantor.
• Haney López, Ian F. (2003). Racism on Trial: The Chicano Fight for Justice. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. pp. 134–154. ISBN 978-0-674-01068-0. The defendants in the Chicano cases complained bitterly about the courts discriminating against Mexicans. Yet on a day-to-day basis the Mexican community interacted much more regularly with law enforcement agencies. In East Los Angeles, these included primarily the Los Angeles police and sheriff's departments. With both agencies, brutality against East Los Angeles's residents was routine. ...
   The LAPD was rife with both conscious and common sense racism. Purposeful racism almost certainly operated among the LAPD officers to a greater degree than among the Los Angeles Superior Court judges during the same period. Joseph Woods, a generally laudatory student of Los Angeles police reform, called the LAPD under Chief Parker [the longest-serving chief in LAPD history] 'a bastion of white supremacy.'
• Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department (1991). Report of the Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department (PDF). Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 9, 2014. Retrieved March 3, 2021.
• Maya, Theodore W. (2002). "To Serve and Protect or to Betray and Neglect: The LAPD and Undocumented Immigrants". UCLA Law Review. 49 (5): 1611–1654. ISSN 1943-1724.
• McGreevy, Patrick (May 22, 2006). "City Seeks Answers to LAPD Delay". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved February 13, 2021. the department's history of abuse and corruption as a backdrop.
• Newton, Jim; Daunt, Tina (November 1, 2000). "City Reaches Deal with U.S. on Police Reform Package". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved February 13, 2021. Never before in its history has the LAPD been subjected to outside monitoring of that type.
• Rubin, Joel (July 18, 2009). "U.S. Ends Oversight of L.A. Police". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved February 13, 2021. Declaring that the Los Angeles Police Department has reformed itself significantly after decades of corruption and brutality complaints, a U.S. judge on Friday ended a long-running period of federal oversight.
• United States Commission on Civil Rights (1999). Racial and Ethnic Tensions in American Communities: Poverty, Inequality, and Discrimination. Volume V: The Los Angeles Report. United States Commission on Civil Rights.

Survey

• No to all, it's majorly WP:UNDUE and WP:POV to put this past stuff in the lead, let alone to take up nearly half of it. This stuff is not half of the topic of law enforcement in Los Angeles. Leads have to be NPOV and can't cherry-pick negative material for a prominent spot. We don't write to push an ACAB narrative. Points 2 and 3 are explicitly outdated. Point 1 is "historical", meaning when exactly? Dropping a bunch of sources in your RfC is not helpful. Which of them verifies the proposed text? Crossroads ^-talk- 23:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

And seriously, three sentences? This same user tried the same thing at NYPD and going for that long was clearly rejected by an RfC there. And that lead was already quite a bit longer than this one. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the sources: This book by Herbert has no clear connection to "corruption, brutality and discriminatory policing". It is instead about territoriality. This by the LA Times from 2006 is an opinion piece, and hence not usable for statements of fact per WP:RSOPINION. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Yes. It provides basic information about the history of this organization. Currently, the lead includes one very short paragraph about the LAPD. That is not sufficient. Misconduct is covered in the largest section in the body of the article, thus the lead should cover the content in a concise neutral manner. It makes sense to note the well-documented history of misconduct (see the academic sources above which cover this history or the news reports that refer to an extensive history of misconduct). It also makes sense to cover the 2001 consent decree with the Department of Justice which led to the most substantial reforms of the organization, and which placed the organization under federal oversight for more than a decade. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

LAPD history is more than just police corruption. You are proposing to take an aspect of an aspect and take up half the lead with it. We don't spend half the lead of any article going on about how the subject was historically so terrible. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm suggesting 2-3 sentences on this topic to the lead. I fully support fleshing out the lead with other content, as well. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - LAPD, 3rd largest in US, known world-wide, and has a lengthy, colorful history. For an subject like this, with 132Kb of content and a fairly large 'controversy' section, it would normally seem reasonable to at least note that "the department has experienced a number of controversies" in the lead. But that said, the lead is surprisingly brief, all considered. (Compare it to the lead of NYPD, which is only 55kb, though it's 'controversies' section was split off, something that should happen here also). Just some observations, take them as you will. - wolf 00:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. This is an important aspect of the department's history (as reflected in extensive reliable sources, including academic sources) and is included in the article, so I think 2-3 sentences in the lead is perfectly proportionate. If others want to include other important aspects of the department (including its jursidiction, technology, recruitment/personnel, cultural impact, etc.), then they can certainly add it. I think this material can easily sit aside other historical material: a well-balanced lead would include mentions, for example, of the Rodney King, Ramparts scandal, other key scandals, the DOJ consent decrees and associated reforms, and other historical material, like Special Order 40, Alice Stebbins Wells, and LAPD's trademark of its name (a first in policing). Neutrality^talk 01:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - The department has had a worldwide reputation (especially after the Rodney King incident) of corruption, misconduct, scandals, etc. for decades now, easily evidenced by years and years of reliable sources... there is no reason that we shouldn't dedicate at least a couple sentences of the lead to this aspect... further details can be covered in the appropriate section, but it is too well known not to garner a small part of the lead... - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Worldwide reputation? And still ongoing? Such claims need sources to back them up. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Yes - The lead could stand to be longer in general but these are definitely some of the things we should include. It's hard to imagine an article on the organization responsible for the beating of Rodney King and whose longest section is "Controversies and misconduct" could not include that information prominently. Loki (talk) 06:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• No. The history of the LAPD goes back to the early part of the 19th century, so talking about its present-day travaille would be a fine example of WP:recentism. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - The controversies and misconduct sections is a large part of the article and should be reflected in the lead. More than 60 references are used throughout that section, it's not like the information is not supported by sources. As for claims of recentism, the said sections covers information going back as far as at least the 1950s, so painting the contentious information as being a recent phenomenon is simply not true. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The 1950s? That's pretty recent. Best wishes anyway. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

1950 is recent in this context? The period since 1950 accounts for 47% of the LAPD's history! And it actually accounts for 59% of the department's history in the period that it has had more than 70 officers. (The LAPD was a very small force in its early years.) 207.161.86.162 (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• No, if addition is made to the current lead. The current lead (sentence?) is way too short and adding it would be undue. Additionally, I am opposed to including words as phrased. (example, "history of corruption, brutality and discriminatory policing" could be phrased as "over the years, there has been several incidences of corruption and police brutality in LAPD"). I think the way forward is to first expand the lead a bit. Add a bit of history, a sentence of two about the various controversies and refer to some of the incidents such as Rampart scandal.--DreamLinker (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, but it can probably be condensed into 2 sentences. 1-2 sentences about their history in general (unrelated to this RFC), one about their history of corruption, brutality and discrimination and the department of justice investigation and one about the consent decree and any actions taken after the decree. A DOJ investigation is basically the gold standard for unbiased research and info about a police department and a summary of DOJ conclusions for any investigation into a police force post 2000 is the best sourcing you can possibly get for a lead about an American police department.Shadybabs (talk) 14:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Yes – This information is crucial to provide an overview of the department's history. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

  OK, but why should it be in the WP: lead, or, rather, in what way should it be in that lead? Thanks for the comment. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

  As to why it should be in the lead, it is sufficiently core to the topic that even a "concise overview" (to use WP:LEAD's language) would be incomplete without it. This is necessary to conform to WP:LEAD, which provides,

  [The lead] should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies [emphasis added].

  As to "in what way" it should be in the lead, I'm open-minded as to the exact language that should be used, but Snooganssnoogans has provided us with a strong outline of what it should include. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 06:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• No, not three sentences added to (or supplanting part of) a three-sentence lead as we currently have. While it is certainly worthy of mention in the lede's summary, as it's a significant portion (~26.8%) of the article, but I think one sentence (at most two) would be enough, something like, "Concerns about a history of corruption and discriminatory policing led to the LAPD being placed under federal oversight from 2001 to 2013" as a last sentence. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Yes per Neutrality (the user) above. I get the concerns about WP:UNDUE given the really bad lead the article currently has, but that just means we should fix the lead, not use it as an excuse to do nothing. This information is quite obviously important to understanding the other aspects of the department in context; being under federal control for over a decade is quite obviously a major part of the department history, and reliable secondary sources characterize that oversight as resulting from the historical actions and decisions of the department and some of its members. We should discuss that in proportion to the other content in the article given the policy at WP:DUE, but it is disingenuous to pretend that the lead's current length is a barrier when the nominator has made clear they plan to improve the lead generally. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Yes to 1-2 sentences assuming improvement of the lead. // @BeenAroundAWhile and Crossroads: The user(s) pitching this didn't make the best case, especially given the 1950s comments (the 1920s–1930s were *notorious*); I don't have piles of time to work on this one, but so you know this isn't a tossed-off vote, I added brief notes regarding some 1920s/30s Chief Davis-era controversies (state border control, illegal intelligence operations, car bombs, red squad), 1930s/40s violence against Mexican Americans (Sleepy Lagoon murder trial, Zoot Suit Riots), some setup for the 1950s–1960s Chief Parker / Watts riots years, w/ ~20 refs, including extensive scholarly work on Mexican Americans & the LAPD (1900–1945 + the 1950s post-Bloody Christmas).

This is the 4th sentence (in a 4-page entry) for "Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD)" in the 2006 Taylor & Francis Encyclopedia of Police Science: "The department has had a complicated history and has been seen in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries as a corrupt agency, but it is emerging in the twenty-first century as a 'model' of police professionalism." I think we can agree that it's a generous source if it's painting the mid/late-20th c as Promising Years for the reputation of the LAPD, & there was no paid LA police force, or any oversight / "governing body", until ~1870, which doesn't leave a lot of time for non-corrupt associations on the earlier end... So the article needs some work & better organization, but I think if there's early acknowledgment there, we can have it here. // Knifegames (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• Premature RFC Longstanding best-practice is embodied in MOS:LEAD and quite clear, the lead summarizes the body and it summarizes it proportionally. There's a lengthy section on misconduct in the article right now and the lead should proportionally represent that. The problem is that just adding that portion without expanding by summarizing everything else does result in undue weight. What is needed is a rewrite of the lead to something that at least half-way resembles what our standards dictate and then trying to weight that appropriately. In a full-length well-written four paragraph lead you will probably end up with 2-3 sentences on that topic, maybe 4. I'm a bit unsure about #2 specifically since mention of single incidents in the lead of higher level topics has to be done with care, but you can't touch upon the department in the 21st century without bringing up #3, and the article has quite a bit to say overall about #1. I guess what I'm saying is expand the lead through the normal editing process, it doesn't have to be weighted right in every edit, but in contentious topic areas don't let it stay that way for very long. Then if there are specific bones of contention, wording where interested parties can't find a good compromise, then go to an RFC. 2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1 (talk) 02:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, but make it brief. See the line about the New York City Police Department: "The NYPD has a history of police brutality, corruption, and discrimination on the basis of race, religion and sexuality, which critics argue persists to the present." Short, brief, to-the-point, doesn't overstay its welcome or try to prove something. Plus, seriously, love 'em or hate 'em, trying to hide the LAPD's history of misconduct from the lead is pretty damn hard... and it's notable. The lead needs more work anyways. AdoTang (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Yes: per Knifegames, the references presented in the RfC statement and the weight given to criticisms of the LAPD in the article proper (though much of it needs better sourcing). The article has a large number of serious issues, including that it contains too much detail (some of which could be split to separate pages, some of which is copaganda that needs to go, some of which is construing everything from the news as a "controversy" without quoting who criticised the LAPD and why), it segregates all the negative content "Controversies and misconduct" rather than incorporating it naturally throughout each relevant section, and the lead is far too short. Rather than trying to maintain an additional inadequacy for consistency, those opposing on the grounds of undue weight should instead expand the lead with other content, ideally after improving the article's structure and citations. — Bilorv (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Added 1 line + lead too short template

This was posted two months ago & has been 12-3 yes for two weeks, so I added one sentence to the lead: "The LAPD has been criticized for its history of police brutality, corruption, discriminatory policing, and human rights violations"; normally I'd go with more specificity, but wanted to err on the side of brevity given discussions of undue weight. I also added the lead too short template, because there's clear consensus that the lead needs to be expanded. // Knifegames (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Operations section

I'm not the only one who thinks the section listing off every division of the LAPD is also unnecessarily long, right? Specifically the patrol divisions under Office of Operations, where I think the short list (between the subsection text and "Operations—Central Bureau") is already enough; no one really cares about the Van Nuys Division's jurisdiction other than the LAPD mega-fans who, judging by the amount of content here compared to the pages for other police departments, appear to have written this entire article. The section also uses nothing but primary sources from the LAPD, but I'm not sure if that's an issue.

Just asking for input here before I get flagged for vandalism for removing the patrol division list. AdoTang (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Go ahead and remove it. That's the kind of stuff that belongs on the LAPD's own website, not an encyclopedia. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not a major contributor here, but I agree; that stuff is more heat than light and can be, IMO, non-problematically removed (watching for deletion of reused refs, though). Do local gang-bangers read this section to find out which station they'll be taken to when they sell drugs south of Vernon Avenue? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

While I do think that we don't need a subsection on each division, I do think a chart or list is needed. Maybe model it after the chart of precincts at New York City Police Department. oknazevad (talk) 09:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely, there's too much detail here. The fact it's primary sources only indicates there's little due weight, as this goes beyond a basic overview into the minutiae of the large-scope organization. — Bilorv (talk) 22:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I've ripped out all the division-by-division/precinct stuff, keeping the lists of what divisions are in which bureaus. We lost some information in the process, such as which streets are covered by which division/station, and how many square feet the Olympic station has, but I think we've got an appropriate level of coverage for this section. (OTOH, the LAPD as a whole has a crazy layout, as shown by their org chart. Sheesh! I'll maybe compare our description with that PDF when I'm feeling stronger.) @AdoTang: hope you don't mind me doing this. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Nah, you're good, thanks. AdoTang (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Great, a definite improvement. — Bilorv (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

More removals

Snooganssnoogans, please do not rip out large amounts of text without getting consensus here first. How a law enforcement agency works is encyclopedic. It's not all brutality and corruption. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

The content in question is "Organizational structure" gobbledigook, such as "The Office of the Chief of Staff is composed of the Board of Police Commissioners Liaison, the Public Communications Group, the Media Relations Division, and the Employee Relations Group." This has ZERO encyclopedic value and is of no interest to anyone. If a reader wants an organizational chart of the LAPD and wants to learn what subdivisions exist in the accounting department, then they can go to the LAPD website to learn that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that there may be some excessive detail in there; however, your claims of it being unencyclopedic and of no interest "to anyone" are 100% subjective. You even removed material about the Office of Constitutional Policing and Policy, "Born out of the Department of Justice's federal consent decree, [it] is responsible for the development of LAPDs policies and procedures, internal auditing and compliance programs, litigation involving the LAPD..." Don't you think it might skew the article's POV to add material about a history of police misconduct to the lead, while at the same time removing any mention of reforms mandated by the consent decree as a result of the past misconduct? Crossroads ^-talk- 01:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

No, that content should also go. There's a sizable section about the consent decree and the reforms that happened as a result of it, and it's all sourced to actual RS. We should not have primary sourced content on some office that does vapid bureaucratic things: "the Office of Constitutional Policing and Policy is responsible for the development of LAPDs policies and procedures, internal auditing and compliance programs, litigation involving the LAPD, the formation and implementation of the LAPDs long-term strategic plan and risk management strategies, as well as coordinating all local, state, and federal governmental and legislative affairs." This is bureaucratic gobbledigook that communicates nothing substantive and has zero encyclopedic value. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

What do you think an article on a major city's police department should cover? There is more to law enforcement than misconduct. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I believe such an article should reflect what RS report, which is what the core WP guidelines say. I do not believe that such an article should contain mundane organizational chart trivia and bureaucratic gobbledigook. No one needs to know that "The Office of the Chief of Staff" has four subdivisions which are called bla bla bla, and what the dozens of awards that the organization gives to its staff looks like, just as the readers of the KFC article don't need to know where the HR and accounting departments lie in the organizational structure of the company, and the categories of awards that the company gives to its staff. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Again, I'm not saying everything has to be kept, but we have to keep WP:PRESERVE in mind regarding material for which better sources likely exist. WP:PRIMARY sources also are not banned. There are many sources that talk about policing in detail, how it's done and how it's organized, and not just from a perspective of focusing on brutality. WP:TE is editing in a partisan and skewed manner, which I believe applies to editing police department articles only to add stuff about brutality and corruption and removing other stuff. We should be editing so as to speak of the good and the bad per due weight, not all one or the other. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

My take is that most of the org structure and medals sections are of interest to only a small subset of readers and that unless these are sourced with Independent Sources are generally WP:UNDUE detail.

I'm not an expert in "standard" or "normal" police rank/department structure, but unless an Org's structure is NOTABLY unique, I would say that there should be little detail discussing it. Some articles on large churchs/denominations have one or two paragraphs of explanation on their structure, but not as large of sections as in this article.

I note that several departments of LAPD have their own articles: Mental Evaluation Unit, Threat Management Unit, Metropolitan Division, Air Support Division...these should be mentioned and linked, and maybe the counter-terrorism unit (since only big departments like NYPD tend to have these) but a lot of the rest should be removed/condensed. ---Avatar317^(talk) 04:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, any units/divisions with their own articles should be covered per WP:Summary style, or perhaps merged (but not gutted). Then it's not so heavy on controversies. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Is the purpose of keeping that unreadable filler in the article to prevent readers from reading about the scandals and misconduct of the LAPD (which for some reason is lumped at the bottom)? Is there no policy-based rationale for keeping the content in the article? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS. Anyone can see and click on the controversies/misconduct section easily, and those are typically at the bottom in other articles. Having that even before material about the organization itself, as you preferred, is itself problematic. I gave my rationale above and am letting others comment, which is how it's supposed to be. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

LAPD misconduct: "critics say" or just state in Wikipedia's voice?

A RfC just concluded where I asked "Should the lead note include 2-3 sentences that the LAPD has (1) a history of corruption, brutality and discriminatory policing, (2) a 2000 DOJ investigation found rampant racism, police brutality, and police corruption within the LAPD, and (3) the LAPD was subsequently placed under federal oversight from 2001 to 2013?" I did not ask whether the lead should say that LAPD "has been criticized" for its misconduct, which alters the well-documented misconduct in the department from an established fact to an attributed perspective. Should the lead attribute the misconduct as a critics POV or as an established fact? In other words, should this edit[1] be in the article? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Please look again and note that it does not, in fact, attribute the misconduct as a POV. It states that the department "has been criticized for its history of police brutality, corruption, and discriminatory policing"; "for its" clearly states that history as a plain fact. It also states why that history is being mentioned - as a grounds of criticism. This is Knifegames' wording, which I support. Buidhe's closure statement above is clear: There is a strong consensus to include a few sentences about controversies as part of a fully developed lead, based on these aspects being prominently and consistently covered in reliable sources....I was asked on my user talk if this RfC close endorses a specific wording of how the controversies are to be discussed in the lead. It does not. Most of the comments were not specific enough to find a consensus for a particular wording. This is exactly as I understand it. I don't see how your wording is any more direct than mine, other than not mentioning that critics point to that for some reason. This page seems to have a number of other watchers who can weigh in. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The current statement in the lead looks good to me; it presents the problems as fact. I do agree that the lead should be bigger and summarize more of the article.---Avatar317^(talk) 04:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Snooganssnoogans––Yes, that is what you asked in the RfC, but there was not majority consensus for 2-3 sentences within the lead *as it then stood* (and still stands); given that the lead had not been improved, I "err[ed] on the side of brevity given discussions of undue weight", as I noted above, and Crossroads' comments reflect my reasoning regarding specific word choice. I contributed a significant amount of research in support of your proposal––I mostly work on music, here, so if I'm in the top 3 for authorship of the LAPD article then I clearly think it's important!––but if you want all of that in the lead, you should work on expanding it so we can avoid a situation like that in the previously-cited NYPD RfC. Much of the unqualified support was based on a shared assumption that you "plan to improve the lead generally" (as per Wug·a·po·des​), and it will be very helpful if you do so. Thanks! // Knifegames (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I've adjusted the wording so instead of nebulously defined "critics" it specifies that the history of abuse, racism, misconduct, etc., were documented by independent commissions who were investigating the LAPD. More tuning on the lead is appropriate for the sake of clarity and brevity, but I think direct attribution is a good compromise between "critics say" and wikivoice. Shadybabs (talk) 03:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

New articles for organization & misconduct? (+ merging, misc cleanup)

JohnFromPinckney has done some (very helpful!!) pruning, but this article's still deep in the weeds and the full contents listing should be easily visible; hard agree with Avatar317's note that more sections should be summarized with links to their respective full articles. Relatedly, I think (1) we need separate articles for the "Organization" and "Controversies and misconduct" sections, as the NYPD has with "Organization of the New York City Police Department" and "New York City Police Department corruption and misconduct". As an informal check, is there general consensus among those following talk?

If so, I can do this for the latter, but am wondering: (2) can someone else make the organization article? I genuinely don't understand the section well enough to do so myself, as it's unwieldy, unclear, filled with redundancies, and appears to mostly just be a list of office/bureau names that should be moved to a dedicated article; I think (3) a section for "services" would be a more relevant/helpful overview. I axed some of the repetitive material but didn't remove content (except what noted "now"); I did remove subheadings for short glosses, instead marking the name in bold and keeping any extant internal links.

The Controversies and misconduct section should give a summary overview including the department's most notable controversies, with the rest included in a separate article. As with "organization" I haven't removed any content for now, just merged several of the decade subheadings; I'll wait until I've heard from people here before making a new article. // Knifegames (talk) 21:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

This is more a comment than a reply, but: the problem with our organization section may well stem from the fact that the LAPD has a crazy organization. See their org chart. I'm surprised even they know who's in what section/department/unit and what their responsibilities are. It's hard to tell from the unit names or simple logic. (So I'm not keen myself to get into that article right now. Sorry!)

Also, you did some great work on the article, Knifegames. I wasn't sure I liked the inline bold of office names, for ultra-strict MOS reasons, but I think it looks a lot better this way and also does wonders for the TOC. Cool! — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Somehow I missed this ages ago, JohnFromPinckney; thanks so much!! Agreed on MOS-based uncertainty, but I figured adding a dash of organization / condensing TOC was priority––which I suppose was correct given that I still haven't gotten around to making either separate section-article. I'm glad you included the "organization" (!!!) chart here if only as confirmation that I'm unlikely to find a more legible source… Knifegames (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Firearms (lack of) sources, updated models

I would say that much of the "Resources" section info should be moved to the Los Angeles Police Department resources article, but right now the majority isn't reliable because the "firearms" section's primary sources do not provide the cited information––though I left some of the unsourced material in the interest of not axing everything. The three main sources are "Gun Nuts Media" and two LAPD pages, one to a list of "blocks of instruction" covered in firearms training and the second an equipment list; neither LAPD source provides any history, further description, or conditions of use. The list of what officers carry "now" was retrieved in 2014, and a quick search of the equipment page shows a number of those models are no longer included.

I updated the list of handguns with the 2021-listed models & left what presumably were the 2014 SWAT weapons. "Gun Nuts Media" doesn't seem like the most reliable source, but I left some of what that page *does* include, updating to reflect the source's degree of specificity (e.g., a note about "1987" is listed as being in "the 1980s" on GNM). // Knifegames (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced job descriptions

Regarding this edit: Thank you, Crossroads, for rewording the copyvio. Could you point me to the source for "The Chief of Staff is responsible for coordinating the flow of information from command staff to ensure that the Chief is fully informed prior to making decisions, performing and coordinating special administrative audits and investigations, and assisting, advising, and submitting recommendations to the Chief of Police in matters involving employee relations" and "The Professional Standards Bureau is the investigative arm of the Chief to identify and report corruption and employee behavior that discredits the LAPD or violates a department policy, procedure, or practice"? Both cite an organizational chart which doesn't include job descriptions. –dlthewave ☎ 22:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

To me, "unsourced" means "uncited". Since the cited source apparently doesn't cover it, I guess it's more of a "failed verification". I would follow WP:PRESERVE, though, and tag it. These aren't extraordinary claims and would belong. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

It's bureaucratic gobbledygook. Unless secondary reliable sources consider this role noteworthy enough to describe in detail (as they do for White House Chief of Staff), Wikipedia shouldn't either. We wouldn't list the duties of senior managers at KFC, so why should we do it for this organization? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

We wouldn't go into exhaustive detail on every case of misconduct by KFC employees either. Apples and oranges. Have you checked for sources? WP:PRIMARY sources are not forbidden. Removing how misconduct is handled by the LAPD is POV. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: Did you see this comment on the Noticeboard about this topic? Also, to address the elephant in the room, Snooganssnoogans, I feel that you're making an error when you see organisational information as a distraction from police misconduct. I don't know if you're familiar with Amnesty International/Human Rights Watch reports, but they typically include a chapter laying out chain of command of the groups involved. May seem mundane, but its an crucial part of establishing institutional responsibility. Explaining the structure of a police force is complimentary to detailing the scandals, not detrimental. --RaiderAspect (talk) 05:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

That comment made me rethink my idea of how much of this stuff is necessary. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The functions of Amnesty, Human Rights Watch and Wikipedia are not the same, so I fail to se the logic of that argument. I'm unaware of any Wikipedia guidelines that instruct us to mimic HRW reports in how Wikipedia pages structure content. If any RS, including Amnesty and HRW cover what the "Chief of Staff" of the LAPD does in detail in relation to the numerous scandals of the LAPD, then Wikipedia can add similar details on that position. The problem here is that Wikipedia should not to fill pages to the brim with bureaucratic gobbledigook that communicates nothing of substance to readers, is copy-pasted from org websites, and cannot be substantiated with any secondary sourcing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

If any RS, including Amnesty and HRW cover what the "Chief of Staff" of the LAPD does in detail in relation to the numerous scandals of the LAPD, then Wikipedia can add similar details on that position. - That's a good point. I don't know what the appropriate trade-off here is. I agree that we shouldn't have excessive detail, and I generally always push for Independent Sources to show that some topic is not UNDUE, but I don't know how to balance that with PRIMARY in cases of Police Departments. ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)