Talk:Blue wall of silence/Archive 1

Archive 1

Speedy deletion

This page had been listed for speedy deletion, however pages do link to it and it seems worthy of an article. Expansion seemed the better course. Gblaz 18:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest a merge with "Code Of Silence" instead. AgentFade2Black 21:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This page has been renamed Blue Code of Silence; Googling quickly shows that this is the term more commonly employed in media and academic documents (rather than Blue Wall of Silence).

A merge with Code of Silence is not advised. The term Code of Silence is much more general, and includes omerta, black and white codes of silence (codes of silence among the clergy), sports codes of silence (in pro cycling, for example), military codes of silence, etc.

At the same time, Blue Code of Silence could do with considerable expansion, particularly in light of the reform initiatives in the 90's (e.g. the Christopher Commission, the adoption of a police misconduct provision by the U.S. Dept. of Justice, etc.) which also continue into this decade.--BuffaloBilly 01:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

To Ginkgo100: I was a little surprised myself to see how often Thin Blue Line is used interchangably with Blue Code of Silence, because in my mind they refer to two very different ideas. But it appears that it is, as claims the Thin Blue Line page ("The term is sometimes used as a pejorative against police who cover up criminal activity of fellow police officers."). For example:

"When the alleged perpetrator is a policeman, this stonewalling may, given the prevailing "code of silence" in police culture, morph into cover-ups, including retaliation against not only the victim but against any outspoken officer who crosses the 'thin blue line'...." -- from "Brutality in Blue"

Personally, I don't see this as proper usage; clearly it was not the original intent of Chief William Parker when he coined the term back in the 50's. But it isn't Wikipedia's role to dictate proper and improper usage....--BuffaloBilly 14:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I love this topic! It's so interesting. All the men in my family are police officers, and i've heard them talk about how they give each other a pass. I didnt kow there was an actual term for it. Well written! ItsBrittany (talk) 02:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

POV Tag

The writing seems very biased against law enforcement. The article uses weasel words and shady attributions, and likens one cop covering up another cop's brutality to bribe taking or drug dealing by police. This is a slippery slope argument that is not demonstrated by cited sources or commonly known research. Also, there is no weight given to WHY such a code exists. Is the USA a particularly challenging population to police? What about places with lower crime rates? Japan, Germany, UK, etc? Is there a difference in the culture of different police jurisdictions? Is San Francisco, or Berkeley, CA different from New York or different from rural Texas? How about a general discussion broken down by urban, suburban, rural, etc. What about the FBI? What about other policing agencies? Does such a code exist in the military police? Do park rangers follow a green wall of silence and brutalize people who poach or overfish? This article sounds like a leaflet I would get at a street rally, not a serious, balanced discussion of the issue of an institutional code of silence in US law enforcement. Gabe (talk) 01:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Dropping a POV tag at the top, since this is clearly not neutral. 174.61.152.90 (talk) 07:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Drive-by NPOV tag

NPOV tags are temporary measures. Slapping a tag on an entry as your sole contribution and never coming back to edit or fix alleged POV is not a means of dispute resolution or bypassing consensus. You need to clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why or I am pulling the tag as per WP:TAGGING. - CompliantDrone (talk) 03:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Picture

What's with the picture of the Boston cop? It has nothing to do with the article, and it seems like a bad idea to associate an individual police officer with an illegal tradition without some reason to. Any objections to removing the picture? Generalcp702^{user talk} 21:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction to this article which states "...is an unwritten rule among police officers in the United States" is misleading. This occurs worldwide, not just in the United States. I plan on deleting the phrase "in the United States" but I'd like to get others opinions on this before I do. Beanyandcecil (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

This article is very one sided, and basically exists to bash law enforcement.

Although the topic is very controversial, this entry is basically a rant about how most police organizations in the U.S. are corrupt.

In the first paragraph: ("Many police departments have their own "code of conduct" though rarely enforced.") I don't believe this blanket statement belongs in an Encyclopedia, nor do I believe its validity.

This article either needs to present both sides or be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.218.204.228 (talk) 06:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I untagged today, appears multiple cleanups have addressed these specific complaints. If you see any more, be bold and edit! — xaosflux ^Talk 17:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Moving again

One can only conclude this move by User:BuffaloBilly was some sort of mistake. BuffaloBilly wrote at the time, "renamed Blue Code of Silence; Googling quickly shows that this is the term more commonly employed in media and academic documents," but this is impossible to reproduce, in fact the opposite is clear:

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=%22blue+code+of+silence%22	About 153 results
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=%22blue+wall+of+silence%22	About 529 results
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22blue+code+of+silence%22	About 242 results
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22blue+wall+of+silence%22	About 627 results
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22blue+code+of+silence%22	About 15,400 results
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22blue+wall+of+silence%22	About 42,500 results

Foogus (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

From those same Google results, the non-capitalized, lower-case version of the phrase seems slightly more prevalent in news and academia, other than in headlines. Foogus (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

US focused

I just readded the -globalize- tag, as this article is very US centric, without acknowledging that. It should either be adjusted to indicate that this primarily deals with a US concept, or, should also include discussing of other countries around the world. Examples of the US-centric style:

• "Police perjury or "testilying" (in United States police slang) is when..."
• "...the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Police Corruption (also known as the Mollen Commission) undertook..."
• "Federal laws strongly prohibit officer misconduct..."
• "Many states have taken measures in police academies to promote..."

All of these sentences , and many many more throughout the article, are used in a generic fashion but only refer to the US. --Reinoutr (talk) 10:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if its a primarily US concept but from what evidence i've seen it seems like it exists in other places but we need to find references for that. - SantiLak (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no doubt that this exists elsewhere, but certainly not under the name "Blue Code of Silence", so then another page title will also have to be used. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Lets look for examples of it elsewhere and then we can start discussing a move. Maybe that term is used in some other countries and in others it is known as something else. - SantiLak (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Burden of proof is on the tagger to illustrate how U.S. perspective is getting undue weight, isn't it? Foogus (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe you are right Foogus. - SantiLak (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I also agree, but I think I provided that proof above... Anyway, I agree with the removal of the tag now [1] that the article clearly states that these terms are referring to the US. Thanks. --Reinoutr (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's a reference from Ireland, but I don't immediately see how to improve the article with it. Foogus (talk) 02:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Rodney King case mentioned twice

Under the section "Cases", the 1991 Rodney King case is mentioned twice. 213.233.254.26 (talk) 03:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

what's your point? if you think it needs a re-write, then re-write it. WP:BRD. Just don't eliminate sourced material. Dlabtot (talk) 05:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

NPOV template

Somebody put this in the article

If you follow the link after "do not remove this message until," the listed conditions for removal include

• It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.

• In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

It is not clear what the neutrality issue is. No satisfactory explanation has been given. There has been no discussion. Therefore the template is being removed. Foogus (talk) 07:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Cops Commit and Get Away with More Crime than the Rest of Citizens Combined

It would be a monumental challenge to actually do a scientific study to get evidence of this, but I'm 100% sure it's true. And it makes sense. Actually such a study would be impossible, since it's impossible to measure crimes gotten away with. However, it is a 100% valid theory, and again, I'm 100% sure it's true. Caelulum (talk) 08:20, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

The word "testilying" is the word the source uses

As such, it should be the main word used in that graf. Since Chillum made his first edit to this article a reversion of me, demanding I take it to the talkpage, I had assumed s/he'd be here as well. As s/he is not, I'm restoring my edit. LHM^{ask me a question} 14:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Please don't rush to assumptions of bad faith. I added the page to my watchlist because of the link here. I noticed the page because of your edit summary. I reverted because the existence of a neologism in a source does not automatically make it appropriate for an article. Please do not start a content discussion with ad hominem attacks.

It looks unencyclopedic, redundant and generally like bad writing. I support the removal of the repeated use of the term in favor of just mentioning it once and using proper English words afterwards. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 14:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no need to use slang and the source uses perjury throughout the document, including the title. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow--your first edit to the article is a bald reversion as well! Interesting. Anyway, the source is titled "Testilying to get the job done." You must be looking at the other source. But whatever--I'm not going to revert again, as it's just not that big of a deal. But the use of portmanteaus does not constitute "bad writing." LHM^{ask me a question} 15:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

What is your problem with people editing the article for the first time? We all edited the article for the first time at some point. Yes, the use of a neologism that is not widely known in English is bad writing. Peter makes an excellent point below. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 15:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not "slang", it's a portmanteau that is often used to refer to what is being discussed in that section. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

What words are blended together to make up "testifying" used in this context? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you show me a non-slang dictionary that has it? Because I only see it in slang dictionaries. Pretty sure it is slang. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 15:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The source cited at the end of the sentence uses it in its title. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The source is using slang. That may be appropriate for an article, but not for an encyclopedia. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 15:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

And your portmanteau claim? Because Webster's has this: "Middle English testifien, from Anglo-French testifier, from Latin testificari, from testis witness" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• I believe you have misunderstood my "claim." The portmanteau in question is "testilying ("testify" + "lying"), not "testifying." Hope that clears up the confusion. LHM^{ask me a question} 19:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you thought of WP:ASTONISH, LHM? "Police perjury" is comprehensible to all and is unlikely to distract. It's difficult to say the same for "testilying".

Peter ^Isotalo 15:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a good point. Thanks for bringing it up. But as the word (and its origin) is explained in the first sentence, in my opinion the risk of WP:ASTONISH is quite low. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

"Police perjury" is neither complicated nor overly formal. It's an extremely easy term to parse even for someone unfamiliar with the topic. When I'm writing articles and several users insist that a certain synonym is awkward or unsuitable, I tend to trust their judgement.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Wikipedia policies/guidelines that I feel support using the word "perjury" instead of "testilying" include: WP:TONE which says that articles should be written in a formal tone and should avoid using argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, and jargon. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Neologisms_and_new_compounds also supports this position I believe. Responding to the original post that "'testilying' is the word the source uses" I would say, "'testilying' is a word the source uses". The sources use "perjury" just as often from what I can see, and they take care to put testilying in quotation marks and define it on first use. Additionally, it's generally bad practice to use US-centric language in articles, whatever the scope. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

There is already a word for this. It's called "Perjury". And it's a federal crime. Caelulum (talk) 08:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I came here to discuss "Testilying" as well. As presented, it constitutes unencyclopedic tone. A full stop note, like so would be better.

Perjurous testimony -- which [author] referred to as "testilying" in [source] -- [...] Dontworryifixedit (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: DAnthonyRocket.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Simmons College supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}} on 14:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)