This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
No one is polling or being democratic here, but WP:BRD is clear that it is up to you to justify additions to the article not to others who remove them with a reason. Information about incidents or events with this community's police department should be on an article about the police department- (and not called "scandal" which is a loaded term) because if there are that many incidents, there would probably be enough reliable sources to consider it notable. 331dot (talk) 07:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
This info belongs as per Wikipedia:Notability. Warminster police misconduct has dominated local headlines for decades and is an important part of their history. Only the obviously noteworthy, encyclopedic entries have been added. There are many other incidents not listed which probably could be. Google "Warminster police corruption" for "About 71,300 results".--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I am not saying it doesn't belong or that it is not notable; I am saying it needs its own article, one for the police department itself. The community is much more than the police department. The numerous sources are more than sufficient to sustain an article. The edit warring notice was not necessary and only told me what I've been trying to tell you- that you must justify your changes to this page per WP:BRD, if they are reverted. 331dot (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Given your agenda to post incidents of police misconduct I should think you would want this to have its own page. 331dot (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
My misunderstood and misleading username notwithstanding, please refrain from telling me what my agenda is. Kindly note that I have made many positive contributions about the police. I have already provided justifications for keeping the referenced info in the article. I do not want to start a separate article about Warminster police misconduct because it might unfairly harm their department's reputation. Such a page would possibly be the second link to appear on an Internet search! My research suggests that Warminster's cops are not nearly as crooked as, say, New York City's or Chicago's, at least judging by what the media has exposed. Nonetheless, significant police wrongdoing is encyclopedic and an important part of Warminster's history, especially since (I think) three of its five most recent police chiefs have been fired for and/or convicted of on-duty crimes. I am respectfully requesting that you work with me on this matter and offer suggestions on how to keep the info in the article.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
You state you are concerned about the reputation of the police department but including the information on the page of the entire community makes the community's reputation look bad. Even if it didn't, Wikipedia goes where the sources take it; we post criticism of Barack Obama, Donald Trump, the CIA, and anyone and anything without regard to its reputation. Only if a BLP article has particularly defamatory information or other similar content that must be removed does reputation play into it. Leaving aside all of that, as a matter of information organization I believe it should have its own page. Can you provide examples (that you weren't involved with) of other communities which have extensive information on its police on the community's page? 331dot (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Consensus is that the article should include information about police misconduct as long as the content is in line with WP:NPOV. Wugapodes (talk) 03:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
Should this page about a community contain information about misconduct by its police department, or should the information be in a separate page about the police department itself? 331dot (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I've been invited in from the Feedback request service and know nothing about the community or its scandal. It does seem to me, though, that any significant local scandal — pticly involving local officials — almost certainly bears a mention. Even if the local police are independently notable enough to be worthy of their own article (which seems unlikely, for a relatively small community), I would expect to see a mention here, just as I would expect to see, day, Peterloo mentioned on Manchester. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 08:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Same article; it's unlikely the police department of a small twp. is notable. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Same article since it is a small town. If it was a major city, then I would support writing it in an article about the police department itself. Just make sure this info is NPOV and does not support one side over the other. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2015 (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.