Jump to content

Talk:Gil Kerlikowske

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

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 03:58, 16 February 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}}: 7 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 6 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Biography}}, {{WikiProject Florida}}, {{WikiProject United States}}, {{WikiProject Barack Obama}}, {{WikiProject Law Enforcement}}, {{WikiProject Drug Policy}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Chief of Police of the Seattle Police Department

[edit]

This page seems highly bias in the "Chief of Police of the Seattle Police Department" section. He did have many success, although the only positive item is the 40 year low in crime rate (which isn't just magically accomplished amongst only failures). (129.133.141.156 (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I actually added most of it. It was the best news sources available and the article was hardly anything at the time. I tried to add in a few lines that were nice to him (Clinton and crime rate), keep out a few controversial issues (war protest concern from the ACLU), and dumb down the WTO2 lines (the source in place is pretty fair to him but others are much more critical). Admittedly I don't like the guy so please edit as appropriate if my POV came across too much. The section could be tinkered with and hopefully additional commentary will come out as his career progresses which will balance it out further.Cptnono (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: I just took a look ate the article with the additional section. It added more information which is good. As a police chief he could have had this information already in place so again I hope more sources are available with the new position. We could remove the WTO2 lines completely. It is interesting since he took over from the guy who received negative feedback on the original event but it may not be particularly noteworthy.Cptnono (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, the page seems much better now. 129.133.141.156 (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The section has been expanded and is predominantly negative. He received significant amounts of negative press and this was used in summaries of his tenure in RS such as Time and local newspapers. He could have easily had a larger page as a police chief but unfortunately no one worked on it. Obviously, the majority of the information available is in regards to his time in Seattle and that will be reflected in the article. To improve and bias concerns, I believe more sources need to be found and added in instead of warping information that is already included. For example, he aloud himself to be Tazed in a demonstration. This received significant coverage. He also received some coverage with his opinions on the assault rifle ban being lifted, surveillance cameras, and dressing up in a costume (bear or lion or something) for some reason (I actually haven't read the article on that yet). I'll put in some info but would appreciate some feedback on what is not noteworthy enough. For example, he got some press and grief for having his gun stolen form his personal vehicle. This didn't seem noteworthy to me so I struck it. Maybe I was incorrect to do so so please readd if deemed appropriate.Cptnono (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marine One Question

[edit]

I don't understand why a soldier (US Army) would be the one saluting the President as he gets onto Marine One (A Marine Corps vehicle, correct?). I've never seen soldiers doing that particular duty on tv, only marines. Because of this, I believe the article is in error, but if anyone knows and can show if that duty is or was a multiservice duty, that would be helpful.216.81.80.134 (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like have something there but we can't dispute Time as a reliable source.Cptnono (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adjusted wording to be per source.

End of Drug War

[edit]

I am not sure the statement "On May 13, 2009, Kerlikowske signaled that the Obama Administration would no longer use the term "War on Drugs", as it is counter-productive and it would demonstrate a favoring of treatment over incarceration in trying to reduce drug use.[14]" is quite factual given the citation. I am unable to see anywhere where that is signaled by Kerlikowske instead of the Administration. It is also confusingly worded. Perhaps, assuming the statement is coincident with the citation, the following wording would be better:

"On May 13, 2009, Kerlikowske signaled that the Obama Administration would no longer use the term "War on Drugs", as it is counter productive, and would instead demonstrate a favoring of treatment over incarceration in trying to reduce drug use." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.113.216 (talk) 06:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know wikipedia isn't supposed to be a soapbox, but this whole idiotic war on drugs makes me want to vomit, especially considering the Obama administration is enabling Karzai's brother in Afghanistan to sell Opium, but they let a Missouri man's two dogs who were put up get shot by police (due to an ignorant, stupid drug policy) right in front of a 7 year old boy for less than 1 gram of cannabis. Hypocrisy, anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.146.165 (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. I hate vandalism and I have such an urge to do that here; his views make me sick.Silenceisgod (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Double same here. But somebody has to stand up to the lunacy of marijuana prohibition.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.14.78.225 (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop edit warring

[edit]

The subject received a significant amount of criticism in Seattle. the lead is supposed to summarize all notable aspects. Why are you reverting? Your edit summaries aren't exactly making sense.Cptnono (talk) 17:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • AGF much? No, just start screaming "edit warring" in your subject line. It's simple. The article supports that he has been criticized for his response to civil unrest. I don't think that fact is lead worthy. My last edit, however, demonstrates I'm willing to compromise on that. The race issue is another matter. The article shows one time, in 2007, where the NAACP made a complaint. The article then shows that the Justice Dept received a complaint about it but fails to show how the matter was resolved. (which is a NPOV issue). There is nothing showing he was charged with anything, found to have broken the law or anything like that. So why does one (unresolved) complaint merit being shoved into the lead? Police chiefs get complaints all the time. Every complaint made to the Civil Rights Division is required to be investigated. These things aren't that notable. If there was a notable outcome, then this might be different. In reality, you have one instance that is merely a complaint. Why does it merit being in the lead? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Gil Kerlikowske. 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.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gil Kerlikowske. 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: 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) 22:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gil_Kerlikowske&oldid=1207953487"