Jump to content

Talk:Lee County Sheriff's Office (Florida)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

List of Notable Achievements 2005-2008

This section is totally unreferenced and can be considered recentism. The acheivements end in 2007 not 2008 also. It also stopped 4 years ago. Can of its important parts be made into a narrative and the rest be jettisoned? Like Sheriff's Athletic League. Sheriff's Departments sponsoring or supporting youth athletics is hardly uncommon....William 17:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


In custody death

If someone wants to make a case for why an in-custody death that has been largely ignored by the local media is somehow encyclopedic, then make the case here. I suspect the demand to include it is due, at least in part, to the current political elections underway for the office. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It didn't get ignored by Gov. Scott. He ordered an investigation.[1]...William 01:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Is Gov. Scott the local media? No. Read what I actually wrote and stop pretending to be witty. The Gov. orders a lot of things in the course of a year. That doesn'ty make it notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Never said Scott was the local media nor was I trying to be witty and you have no idea how much I dislike Scott and I used to blog at a conservative website.(But I'm a registered Democrat and I've blogged at Newsweek too.) You brought politics in as a reason for the edit based on nothing but thin air and perhaps your own political biases. Back to the subject- I'm not sold that its notable on its own, but a section listing famous or infamous cases and incidents involving the Lee County might. Not that I know enough about Lee County to do one. I've been a resident of Southeast Florida for 36 years not Southwest or Western Florida....William 17:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • First off, don't tell me about my bias. You don't know half of what you think you know. Second, I said I suspect politics were part of it because the election is in progress. I'm allowed to suspect things and even state them. Note carefully that I said I suspect it. My removal of the event, however, doesn't have a thing to do with politics. Now that it has been refuted, you can save your own (incorrect) speculation about what you think my bias is. Adding a new section so that we can try to dump minor incidents into the article is probably venturing into WP:COATRACK territory. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea what your bias is. You have turned the discussion personal with me the first chance you got by telling me to stop pretending to be witty. The next thing out of you was not to tell you what your biases were. I never did that either because I haven't a clue on the topic. This I know however- Every single person on this planet has biases. Your suspicion of politics being a factor is based on nothing but thin air. Politicians and their opponents are in campaign mode almost always. It won't be a week after the November elections and the pundits will be discussing the next one and elected officials making their plans for it too....William 19:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Did I say I have no biases about anything? No, I did not. So please don't pretend like I did. Did you come into the discussion and say that my suspicion was "based on nothing but thin air and perhaps your own political biases"? Yes, you did. And guess what? I don't have to prove my suspicion at all. If I were making an allegation, I'd rightly be asked to back it up. So were you speculating on what my biases are? Yes, you were. So stop pretending otherwise. This all has zero to do with political bias. Now, you can keep talking about an imagined bias and pretending like there is some political bias that you can demonstrate or you can get back to the topic. Your choice. Be productive or not? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • First, I don't care where you live. I suspect what I suspect. There is no "implication". I made a plain, ubnambiguous statemet. If it offends you, that's your problem. Second, how is it "offensive" for my to say I suspect you have an agenda, yet you feel it is perfectly ok for you to say that I seem to have a personal investment in this? Third, I know the HuffPo covered it. What you fail to understand is that nobody is disputing that the incident occured or that some news outlets covered it. Understand? What IS being disputed is the lasting notability. Just because something is covered in a news cycle doesn't make it encyclopedic. Justin Bieber got a car for his last birthday. Far more news sources covered that fact, yet it isn't encyclopedic and doesn't belong in his article. Have you bothered to read WP:RECENTISM? This certainly fails the 10 year test since the incident rapidly fell off the map. While you are at it, try reading WP:NOTNEWS. Specifically: "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". Niteshift36 (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I have just asked[2] WP administrator and Floridian, The Bushranger, if he could come over and mediate....William 17:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Hm. Are there sources available other than the one that was provided (Huffington Post)? I've seen comments that indicate HP isn't as reliable a source as WP would like. Also, as for whether it should be included at all, I'm honestly not sure. Standing on its own it seems WP:UNDUE - are there other incidents that could be added to the article? If not, then perhaps an article Death of Nick Christie might be in order, if the incident is, indeed, sufficently notable for Wikipedia mention. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I think Death of Nick Christie is a great idea actually. I still stand by the statement that it is still being covered in the news INTERNATIONALLY over 2 years later. Warcraftninjas (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • There are other sources. It's not being denied that the happened or even that there was some coverage of it in the short term. It was covered for a couple of days, then, like most non-notable events, it fell off the screen. If you do the GNews search, you will see the long gaps in coverage, indicating that the event isn't notable in Wikipedia terms. An article on that singular event would probably find its way into AfD quickly, mainly as WP:NOTNEWS and other reasons. If you are asking if there is a pattern of in-custody deaths at this agency or something like that, the answer is no. I've seen no allegation by the media or by any investigative body claiming this event indicates a systemic problem. In short, this is a single event that, while very important to the Christie family, simply doesn't have the lasting notability for inclusion. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
The homicide happened in 2009 and is still being covered by news agencies in 2012. How is that not long lasting? Please refrain from sending me private messages that baseless. My opinion of you is much like your "suspicion" of me engaging in politics. Your premise that it is not long lasting is baseless. Don't like HoPo even though it is a news outlet, here international coverage too http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2085628/Nick-Christie-Mentally-ill-prisoner-strapped-Devils-Chair-pepper-sprayed-death.html over TWO years later. Niteshift has no valid argument. Warcraftninjas (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Saying "it's still being covered" is misleading. If you look at the pattern of coverage, you see long, long gaps of essentially no coverage, then very brief blip when someone files a suit or someone makes a statement, followed by long periods of nothing. Second, I haven't complained about HuffPo as a source at all, so you really need to pay closer attention and stop with your false assertion that it's a matter of me not liking the source. Since you are apparently struggling with reading comprehension, I won't bother addressing what I said (and you mischaracterized) about your statement of opinions about me. You keep squawking about "international" coverage. That doesn't make something encyclopedic (see the Justin Bieber example). Have you even read the policies, guidelines and essays that I've referred to? While you complain about my argument not being valid, you should note that your own argument hasn't involved citing any policies, guidelines etc, just a lot of repeating "it's important". BTW, if you don't want me at your talk page, don't use it to talk about me. If you are going to make allegations and suggest that I shouldn't be allowed to edit, then expect a response. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Did you not read the above poster who questioned HoPo, you are way to defensive and abusive and I am reporting your account. I do not know who you think you are or where you get off insulting people. I am reversing your edit and will continue to do so because it is notable it is still being reported 2 years later. It meets the guidelines you just have some personal agenda made clear by your abuse. Warcraftninjas (talk) 23:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Already done. Warcraftninjas (talk) 00:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

  • Ninja, despite your claims to the contrary, nobody else is actually supporting inclusion of the material. William said "I'm not sold that its notable on its own" and Ranger said "Standing on its own it seems WP:UNDUE". I don't see any established editor saying that they think this incident is notable on its own. Your claim that concensus is on your side is false. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • interesting how you left out the part where William said he thought he could be included in a section listing events. Your omission is a falsehood itself. And I do not see anywhere it says that an established editor is more important than anyone else. Regardless, I have been editing for years under a previous name that was hacked. Warcraftninjas (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I left it out because it's not relavant at this point. He said IF there were other incidents that were notable AND there were reliable sources then MAYBE a section could be used. That's all completely moot as long as we are talking about a single incident. And again, you see something that isn't there. Established editors usually understand the policies. You appear to not be too well versed on what makes something notable. For example, you seem to think "international" means notable (hence your repeated claims about it, even emphasizing it with all caps). As for your claim of being an experienced editor for years......whatever you say. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Misconduct

This section is in line with misconduct sections for other departments. I have only included stories with cites and some sort of determination something really happened. Frankly, I am more impressed by the energy the current sheriff has used to fire deputies who misbehave. I have no idea what is meant by "minor incidents" unworthy of inclusion. If someone can define the idea, I would consider implementing it. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Sorry, this is not reasonable. BLP applies here and using this as a platform to list a bunch of mostly minor complaints won't fly. This section gives WP:UNDUE emphasis to items that have no enduring notability in the history of the agency. Simply having occurred or having a source doesn't ensure inclusion. WP:NOTNEWS tells us that "...not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia" and "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion.". These items were newsworthy, but they aren't encyclopedic. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I appreciate your taking the time to note my work. Your ideas are well-worded. I am not sure you are right however. Taken as a whole, a list such as this shows us what sort of organization we are talking about. (My impression, for what it is worth, is that the current sheriff is very energetic in keeping his deputies in line.) But I always try to consider well-reasoned arguments. It is bedtime here, and so I shall sleep on it. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm glad he's energetic, however, I don't see these as being indicative of the agency and, more importantly, as encyclopedic. For example, you list policy violations. These are internal matters, not even legal issues. People getting suspended for 3 days? Off-duty issues? If we are talking about a felony committed in the course of official duty? Yeah, I might discuss that. A supervisor being disciplined for "being abusive" to subordinates? No, not encyclopedic. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I think you have a very valid point. I suppose when I find some nugget when doing the research I tend to include it just out of a bit of pride and stubbornness. But, what ought to be included? Can we make a simply, clear rule? All convictions, guilty pleas and agreements to settle a suit for money? Off the top of my head that seems reasonable, but of course that lady driving drunk in her own car meets that requirement and does seem important. On the other hand a policeman driving drunk in his official car and hitting someone certainly seem worth inclusion. Can we draw a clear line to help contributors? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 01:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd immediately eliminate the notion of simply agreeing to a settlement as the criteria. In a couple of articles where misconduct was the actual topic, we used a "significant sum" guideline, which is arbitrary, but eliminates the "chump change" payoff that happens to make nuisance suits go away. Nor would I support misdemeanor anything or items that had nothing to do with on-duty activity. You mentioned "other articles" have similar sections. That's usually not persuasive. Just because it exists doesn't make it correct (see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). On the other side of that, I'd point out that the article on the Miami Police Department talks about a single controversy that ended up getting a lot of media coverage and involved a feud between agencies. The article about the Miami-Dade Police Department, the largest agency in the southeast, has no controversy section. Nor does the articles for Broward or Pinellas sheriff's offices. In the end, I appreciate your willingness to discuss, but I truly don't see how these incidents are encyclopedic. If you're looking for outside input, the Wikipedia Law Enforcement project might be a good place to start. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I think you are convincing me. I suspect I will scurry off to undo at least the more trivial misconduct entries I have made in the past. But, examples of coverup, internal corruption and wrongful homicides (off the top of my head) all seem worth inclusion. Is some policeman stealing from the PBU notable and encyclopedic? Well not if we were writing a paper encyclopedia only directed at a worldwide general readership. But if someone want to know where is tax money was going, Wikipedia ought to be the paced to come to know about misconduct by the local school board, sheriff or hospital. Anyway, I am off to work. Perhaps we can talk in a few hours' time. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)—
  • While all that sort of stuff is nice to know, that's what the local media is for. Wikipedia isn't here to compete with that. Many local outlets do a great job, but that's what the local media should do. As I mentioned, most newsworthy things don't really belong here. If there was a murder two blocks fro your house, you'd surely want to know about it, but it most likely wouldn't belong here. Nor does a guy getting suspended for 3 days because he was mean to subordinates. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lee_County_Sheriff%27s_Office_(Florida)/Archive_1&oldid=1131346734"