Talk:Florida Criminal Justice Standards & Training Commission

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

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Aoidh (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Moved to mainspace by Schwede66 (talk). Self-nominated at 02:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Comment: Glad to see the IP/Schwede66 duo is still doing great work. In this context, I think the IP's initial inclusion of "alleged" is required by the BLP standard WP:SUSPECT, as the commission has punitive powers but is not itself a court. Even if it isn't, I think the relatively recent character of the misconduct and appearance on the main page merits an increased degree of caution. Again, glad to see this very thorough IP editor and Schwede66 collaborating. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Decided to just go ahead and review this one. I'll accept Schwede66's reasoning for excluding the word "alleged" on the basis that the officer involved admitted to the action and that the action was not necessarily an illegal one, but rather poor discipline. QPQ performed by IP, hook is interesting, hook is sourced in article, and article is in a sufficiently advanced state that makes it worthy of DYK. Nice job. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Schwede66 and Pbritti: I'm not so sure – WP:DYK#gen4a says that Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided. (emphasis in original) even if it does fall afoul of WP:SUSPECT, it would seem to me that it's undue negative focus on the deputy, given that they haven't been convicted. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Theleekycauldron: If you're sufficiently concerned that this stumbles on the unduly standard, I do want to defer to your judgement. I think there are plenty of other factoids that we could derive from this article for a DYK. Unfortunately, I think a previous DYK from the same IP editor similarly hit on some of the same problems. Let me know if I can help further. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First -- The focus here is not IMHO something "unduly negative". The focus here is rather the "exceedingly odd" bit about the sending of the cake - leading a reader to want to read more. As to what is a hook where the "focus" is unduly negative - an example could be this one .. though it just ran a couple of weeks ago as a DYK. "Did you know... that Craig Greenberg was shot at while running in the 2022 Louisville mayoral election?" Template:Did you know nominations/Craig Greenberg. Pinging User:RoySmith, who may have thoughts, as he promoted that DYK.
Second -- Wikipedia:DYKHOOK states: "When you write the hook, please make it "hooky", that is, short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article – as long as they don't misstate the article content." 2603:7000:2143:8500:3484:A520:5DBA:2ACC (talk) 06:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really don't like this hook. The negative aspects aside, the interesting part (the sending of the cake) has nothing to do with the main subject of the article. In fact, a good chunk of the article is just a laundry list of cases the commission has investigated. It's all just trivia. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That latest query refers to Wikipedia:Recent_additions#4_December_2022 but to me, that's Wikipedia:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments. Anyway, both ALT2 or ALT3 work for me. Schwede66 20:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • what if the hook simply doesn't mention the alleged tasing? it seems redundant, given the description of the cake. in addition, since it also appears that the deputy merely sent the woman a photo of such a cake, it might be better to avoid mentioning either the alleged tasing or the alleged cake sending. (this gizmodo source appears to corroborate what was mentioned in the vocativ source about the origin of the cake.)

      ALT4: ... that the Florida Criminal Justice Standards & Training Commission reviewed a case in which a deputy sent a woman a photo of a cake with the words "Sorry I Tased You" in blue frosting?

      dying (talk) 09:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • That works. 2603:7000:2143:8500:ECB7:8D19:F02D:A115 (talk) 09:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • It may work, but it isn't what the article says: the article still says it was a cake, not a photo of one. If ALT4 is accurate, then the article needs to be updated, and the facts in the references need to match the facts in the article and hook. Schwede66, can you take care of this? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, that's done. This source states:

    A local woman has filed a civil lawsuit against a former Escambia County deputy who allegedly discharged a stun gun into her chest and neck without provocation, tried to cover up the incident, then apologized by sending her a photo of an off-color cake.

    With regards to the colour of the frosting, that's from the other source:

    A Florida's woman's lawsuit says a deputy shot her with a stun gun, then apologized with a cake that said, "Sorry I Tased You" in blue frosting.

    Ping to BlueMoonset. Schwede66 06:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reviewer needed to consider the remaining three hooks, their sourcing, and the other issues raised above. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point, only ALT4 is approved. I have struck ALT2, which is not OK because it uses present tense and does not specify a time period (which turns out to be 1985–mid-2018); also, the fact hasn't been incorporated into the article. (Given that the fact itself is quite a sensitive one, there's no room for imprecision or error here.) ALT3 is *not* approved yet because the figure cited (over 300 officers disciplined) does not match what it says the article (344 cases heard). The source says "322 cases resulted in some form of discipline", so the fact should be adjusted accordingly in the article and the hook, if we want to use this hook. Again, no room for vagueness, errors, or misunderstandings, especially given the sensitivity, so I've struck ALT3 for now as well. (Earwig said copyvio unlikely but I looked at the top two matches over 20% and have edited a couple of sentences further both for clarity and to avoid unnecessary quoting. In any case I'll go ahead and approve this now, but it's only ALT4 which is approved; there's always the option of further workshopping of hooks at WP:DYKNA if needed, but I have to say, personally I like the cake one.) Cielquiparle (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Cielquiparle. I also prefer ALT4. Good outcome. Schwede66 16:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Outside scope of WikiProject Crime[edit]

I removed the WikiProject Crime banner from this talk page because the Florida Criminal Justice Standards & Training Commission is an organisation that is involved with the integrity of people working in Florida's criminal justice system. While it is might adjudicate on the fitness of criminal justice workers' criminal behaviour, the commission, itself, is not a criminal organisation, but a judicial or law enforcement one. While the organisation might render a judgement on a crime, its purpose is upholding the law, not breaking it. That puts it outside the scope of WikiProject Crime. If you have a different opinion and want to put the banner back, please discuss that here and explain your reasoning. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 09:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Florida_Criminal_Justice_Standards_%26_Training_Commission&oldid=1196495879"