Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cases of police brutality in the United States

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Opinions are divided. But I find the "delete" arguments significantly more persuasive in the light of applicable policies and guidelines. The "delete" side advances numerous, prima facie valid arguments for deletion, such as the lack of clear, objective and usefully limiting inclusion criteria, as well as BLP concerns. The "keep" arguments mostly do not address or gloss over these concerns.  Sandstein  10:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of cases of police brutality in the United States[edit]

List of cases of police brutality in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a list of incidents that various editors have decided were "police brutality". Discussion is focused on whether or not civil settlements, dropped criminal cases, civil judgements with criminal findings of not guilty, etc. should be included. There are no objective, sourced criteria for determining what is or is not "police brutality". I have been unable to locate sources for such criteria. Additionally, the list seems to have no conceivable limits as to what would be included; the slippery definition at police brutality includes "forms of verbal attacks and psychological intimidation" (I'd say police in riot gear are psychologically intimidating, as is the cop pulling you over for speeding) spread out over hundreds of years and hundreds of millions of people. SummerPhDv2.0 01:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  01:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Instead of making separate article on each incidence it will be better to make single article incorporating all incidences. Those incidences in which "brutality" of police is "questionable" can be removed. There is category named Category:Police brutality in the United States, some of articles from that category can be merged into this list. --Human3015TALK  01:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To keep this article, we need unambiguous, sourced criteria. We have not been able to find such criteria. Without such criteria, every entry on the list is POV. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Reluctant delete: Despite numerous requests to propose a criteria for inclusion on the list, the nominator has refused and just complained about the short-comings of the list. Without a legitimate criteria for inclusion, the list becomes a magnet for agenda pushers and editors with an axe to grind against particular police departments. I could change my !vote if some support was gained for a reasonable set of criteria. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To clarify: I am not refusing to propose criteria, I cannot locate unambiguous, sourced criteria. No matter how often I am asked, I cannot provide something that -- so far as I can determine -- does not exist. If you or anyone else can find them, we might have something. We would still need to address selection criteria: all incidents (i.e., millions of entries)?, notable incidents? (duplicating the unsourced category that needs to be cleaned out)?, some other unambiguous, sourced criteria? - SummerPhDv2.0 03:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've asked several times for you to propose a criteria. Thus far, you haven't. When you're asked to do something more than once and don't do it, you're refusing. It is up to us, the community, to decide that scope of the list, then the criteria that fits that, not look for already established criteria. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've asked several times for something that apparently does not exist. There is a difference between "I will not" and "I cannot". - SummerPhDv2.0 14:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That doesn't even make sense. I've asked for you to tell us what you think the criteria should be. Well of course it doesn't exist, if it did, I wouldn't be asking for it. Oh wait... you're still obsessing about the previous criteria that you can't find. Move on from it. You've been asked to propose a criteria. That means your own thoughts, not mine. Have you proposed one? No, you haven't. And yes, there is a difference between can't and won't. Thanks for the obvious. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A list such as this needs unambiguous sourced criteria. If I invent criteria, the article would have to be List of cases of what SummerPhD calls "police brutality" in the United States. I cannot find unambiguous sourced criteria. - SummerPhDv2.0 00:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I asked for a suggestion.......proposed criteria. If we could agree on a proposal, then we could see if those sources exist. You want step B without step A. I think it's pretty evident at this point that you won't actually make the suggestion, just complain that we can't find a source to state...something that we haven't actually decided on trying to describe, so I'll stop asking for what you will not do. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Step 1: Propose list of criteria. Step 3: Find source supporting list of criteria. Got it. I'm done. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that you don't find determining the scope of the list to be the first step is puzzling. Just start nailing boards together. I guess it'll form a house at some point? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are plenty of sources for the topic with obvious titles such as Police Brutality. These say things like "Many criteria have been used by police scholars to delineate various types of police brutality...". The topic clearly passes WP:LISTN and, per WP:CLN, we should not delete the list to favour the corresponding category. Lists are better at handling disputed cases because they support citations and notes. Andrew D. (talk) 07:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Do any of those sources give unambiguous criteria that we can use to determine if various incidents are "police brutality"? As for selection, are you suggesting a comprehensive list of every incident or some limiting criteria? - SummerPhDv2.0 11:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andrew, this is why we need an actual criteria. For example, say a news site with a propensity for advocacy, like Mother Jones, decides to call an incident "brutality" because an officer made someone lay on the floor of a bar, but the incident was investigated, no charges filed, no significant civil suit results or any disciplinary finding or wrong-doing was made. We can't list something just because a source used a single word. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. I will preface my comment by saying that I almost always advocate for improvement rather than deletion (per WP:ATD and "don't throw the baby out with the WP:BATHWATER"). However, there are a few reasons why deletion is appropriate here:
  1. The selection criteria for this list are ambiguous and subjective: WP:LSC says that selection criteria for standalone lists must be "unambiguous" and "objective". As SummerPhDv2.0 explains above, "police brutality" is exceedingly difficult to define. In the United States, "police brutality" is neither a crime nor a cause of action in tort (I think "excessive force" may be a tort in some jurisdictions, but that is arguably a different topic). Police brutality can, in some circumstances, be actionable as a section 1983 claim if the police violate an individual's constitutional rights, but a determination of whether the police were "brutal" is rarely determined in a court of law. Indeed, a determination of whether the use of force is "warranted" is necessarily subjective. It is a determination that is often made by inexpert media commentators who know little of the law or police procedures.
  2. There is no reasonable way to limit the scope of this list: According to WP:SALAT, "[l]ists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value." As a matter of policy, Wikipedia should not have lists of cases about a specific crime, infraction, tort, or sin. Wikipedia does not have a list of Clean Water Act violations, a list of burglaries, or a list of arsons. I am sure you could find many notable examples of each, but a comprehensive list of such crimes would be far too broad to be of any use.
  3. This list includes numerous violations of BLP policies: Many cases are included in this list because they ended in a settlement. The list then implies that because the cases settled, police brutality occurred. However, that conclusion is not supported by evidence. People often settle lawsuits even though they have committed no wrong – sometimes they believe that the evidence would look bad to a jury, and sometimes they simply don’t want to go through the stress of litigation. Indeed, many criminal defendants have plead guilty even though they were actually innocent (see Alford Plea). Unfortunately, the inclusion of these cases on the list violates BLP guidelines that that forbid any implication that a person has committed a crime. WP:BLPCRIME states that "editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured" (emphasis in original). I don’t think any of the law enforcement officers in this list have actually been found guilty of a crime or tort called “police brutality,” so BLP therefore forbids any implication that they have committed such a crime.
  4. Problems with neutrality: Assuming, arguendo, that you can define police brutality, an incomplete list of cases likely implicated issues of WP:WEIGHT. Including partial lists of cases misleads casual readers who may think that the missing cases may be unimportant, or that they may not have been police brutality cases at all (see WP:WEIGHT and WP:NLISTITEM).
For the aforementioned reasons, deletion is warranted. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is the best response I've read. Point 3 is especially valid. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this appears to be a sink hole for POV pushing. I don't see how it can ever be WP:NPOV. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - useful list. any list that makes a subject more comprehensible is beneficial for Wikipedia.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It may or may not be WP:USEFUL. It does seem to be irreparably biased and POV. - SummerPhDv2.0 15:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, usefulness does not overcome the policy violations pursuant to WP:LSC and WP:SALAT, not to mention the BLP and WEIGHT issues. By way of analogy, a list of any crime may be "useful," but I don't think a "list of examples of cheating on taxes" would pass selection criteria or scope requirements for lists. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Passes GNG. The sheer number of prominent and high profile cases within the United States is necessary within an encyclopedia. CrazyAces489 (talk) 07:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As discussed above, we have neither workable selection criteria nor unambiguous sourced criteria defining "police brutality". - SummerPhDv2.0 14:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Yes there are high-profile cases in the United States that can be defined as police brutality. However, for those "in-between" cases where brutality or reasonable force is based more on opinion than fact is where this list loses any purpose. It's a point-of-view, which isn't reasonably helpful to an encyclopedia.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Of academic value and well-sourced. If an entry is disputed, take it to talk rather than trying to wipe out the page. AusLondonder (talk) 01:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As discussed above, we have neither workable selection criteria nor unambiguous sourced criteria defining "police brutality". - SummerPhDv2.0 01:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AusLondonder, the fact that well sourced examples exist does not overcome the policy violations pursuant to WP:LSC and WP:SALAT. Per WP:LSC, the selection criteria for this list are ambiguous and subjective. Per WP:SALAT, there is also no reasonable way to limit the scope of this list. Nor is "academic value" a factor that we consider in AfD. A "list of tombstones in Canada" may have academic value, but such a list would violate WP:LSC and WP:SALAT. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the test for inclusion in the list should be notability as event in and of itself. Why can't we develop criteria? --JumpLike23 (talk) 03:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We need unambiguous, sourced criteria defining "police brutality". They must be unambiguous such that there is no question of POV as to whether or not a particular incident fits. The criteria must be sourced, otherwise we are creating a topic, similar to why we don't have a "List of yucky vegetables" or "List of corrupt politicians". If someone is convicted of murder, they are a murderer and the incident was a murder. "Police brutality" is not a specific crime and sources use varying, subjective definitions. - SummerPhDv2.0 04:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
jumplike23, as SummerPhD explains above, it is impossible to create criteria that are "unambiguous" and "objective", as is required by WP:LSC. "Police brutality" is neither a crime nor a tort in any American jurisdiction, so the characterization of any police action as "brutal" will necessarily be based on the subjective judgments of commentators. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 04:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
many countries actually have laws addressing police brutality. See law dictionary If the reliable sources characterize it as police brutality, then we can list it as such. But, we do have a list of terrorist incidents and that is very subjectively defined. We have a list of NYPD scandals. Should we question what is a scandal? --JumpLike23 (talk) 04:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is not merely possible but likely that there are articles with ambiguous, subjective and/or unsourced criteria. Those articles have problems that should be addressed in one way or another. We're attempting to address this article's problems here. - SummerPhDv2.0 12:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's only address the standard in a vacuum. --JumpLike23 (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
jumplike23, to elaborate on SummerPhD's point, other countries may have crimes or torts that may be called "police brutality," but no jurisdiction in the United States (to my knowledge) has such a cause of action. Other causes of action that are often used to claim damages for unlawful police conduct (including excessive force, section 1983 claims, substantive due process violations, etc-) are conceptually distinct from "police brutality" and provide little information about whether police conduct was "brutal." For example, the use of a taser on a suspect may be "excessive" (thereby satisfying the definition of "excessive force"), but it may not be "brutal." Indeed, it is impossible to create criteria for inclusion in this list that are unambiguous and objective because reliable sources necessarily impart their own subjective judgments about the definition of "brutality" when discussing this subject. To give you an analogy, we would not have a "list of people who look silly in Kansas" here on Wikipedia because the selection criteria would necessarily rely upon subjective judgments. Although there may be many reliable sources that describe people who "look silly," such judgments are necessarily subjective per WP:LSC. Also, these thoughts from WP:Ambiguous Words are instructive: "Some words have multiple interpretations and have different meanings dependent upon one's perspective. What one source describes as a 'war', may be described as an 'invasion' by the other side. Use of such words tends to be seen as advocating the views of one side over the other, unless they are clearly attributed to the correct side." -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm actually appalled at the lack of research from a supposed reliable source like Law Dictionary. It even claims to be "fact checked"! It actually says "Police officers can use nerve gas..." Nerve gas? Are they for real? That really makes their claim that verbal abuse is "police brutality" fairly dubious. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong DELETE I came to this page think in this was a slam dunk. Police brutality? Of course we (America) have a problem with police brutality. Who would try to delete such a list. But the longer I edit, the more persuaded I become of the absolute need for articles to be tightly defined. Lists included. Perhaps lists especially. I am not saying that we need to define "police brutality". I am saying that we need to define what kind of incidents would be included in such a list. (Accusations? - by whom? Indictment? Conviction? Physical brutality, or verbal?) The problems with an utterly undefined list of this kind are enormous. Delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. There is simply no way to overcome all the problems. No one has even made a real attempt to define the selection criteria. VMS Mosaic (talk) 00:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I have !voted delete, the statement that nobody has tried to define a criteria isn't accurate. There have been discussions at the talk page about it. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revisiting this AFD, I went to the talk page, and WOW did it persuade me that this page ABSOLUTELY needs to be Deleted. Attempts to require citations go back years, and serious efforts to define this list go back at least to 2014. All efforts at definition of what qualifies for the list have been stubbornly and effectively resisted. Sometimes, the only fix for a serious and persistent problem is DELETE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Honestly, without any clear inclusion criteria this is going to become a massive violation of indiscriminate list of every time the police did something that people disliked. Also, there seems to be a large amount of original research in the list, in which Wikipedia editors, rather than reliable sources, have made the determination of whether police brutality occurred. While the presence of original research is generally not reason for deletion, without clear inclusion criteria this list is going to be in perpetual violation. If this article is kept, we should be extra careful to make sure that no edits are made to it that are in violation of Wikipedia:Libel, a policy with legal considerations. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. How about this for the inclusion criteria: only include events that two different reliable sources classify as police brutality, and where the police officer(s) are convicted of a crime as a result. We don't have to use a published definition of "police brutality" as inclusion criteria - the inclusion criteria are something that we get to decide ourselves, as Wikipedia editors. Certainly, we can't create our own definition of police brutality, but that is not the same thing as creating inclusion criteria. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 00:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_cases_of_police_brutality_in_the_United_States&oldid=1077961808"