Jump to content

Talk:Law Enforcement Support Office

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

Not-helpful redirects

[edit]

Police militarization and Militarization of police redirect here, but isn't there a more appropriate place? We obviously need an article on the general trend (the current one, and historical cases of it, e.g. under fascism and communism, etc.), not just this specific program.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there should be a more general article on this phenomenon,  SMcCandlish ☺, but don't have the time to write it just now! Maybe we can collaborate on that sometime around late December. -Darouet (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, absolutely needed. Journalist Radley Balko's book on police militarization in the US is an excellent source on the history. N2e (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

section titles, references, organization

[edit]

Section History contains more description than history. Diffuse terms like later have no place in a history section. will create a new section titled "descrption" to tease out descriptive stuff.

Promised review is a political response. Therefore the section could be subsection of Pol resp , but should not be stand alone before political response. Promised review also refers to Ferguson which is wiklinked / was first introduced in the now subordinated section Political response, so wrong sequence.

At least one references is incorrect , from 2013 with sentence referring to 2014 events and I will flag it. --Wuerzele (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your attention Wuerzele! -Darouet (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Release of US DoD information in December 2014

[edit]

With the release of the US Department of Defense (DoD) information on the very large amount of tactical military equipment given to civilian police agencies of state and local government since the 1990s, there is a LOT of material now to make a lot of updates to articles in Wikipedia.

Here is some metatext, and a prepared citation, I just used to update a couple of articles in my fair state, Colorado.

Since 2006, the Greeley Police Department has received more than US$2.3 million of tactical military equipment from the US Department of Defense (DoD) including a "mine resistant vehicle", 72 5.56 mm rifles, 22 suppressors, and 15 sniperscopes. Prior to 2014, when the information was made public by the DoD in response to public scrutiny over widespread police militarization in the USA, the program details had been closely guarded and little information had been released during the previous 20 years.[1]

Florence, Colorado also received a surfeit of stuff for a very small town, including a "combat assault tactical wheeled vehicle".

YMMV, but others may find this helpful to update a few articles on other localities that have received particularly large amounts of this military equipment for ciivilian policing. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References for the above section

[edit]
  1. ^ Musgrave, Shawn; Meagher, Tom; Vong, Iva r; Dance, Gabriel (2014-12-05). "The Pentagon Finally Details its Weapons-for-Cops Giveaway". MuckRock News. Retrieved 2014-12-07.

Removal lead info about Ferguson response

[edit]

Hey Niteshift36, I reverted your removal of the lead info about Ferguson and the president's review of the program because that information is documented in a whole section of the article. Furthermore, it was these series of events that put 1033 into the public spotlight, and made the program WP:NOTABLE enough that we wrote the article. Let me know what you're thinking if you disagree. -Darouet (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, I'm thinking that this article is suffering from a serious amount of WP:RECENTISM. The program is over 20 years old but far too much of this article focuses on the past 12 months, much of it specifically related to Ferguson, which in reality had little to do with that program. There's almost a blow by blow time line of every politician or person who knows a politician that commented on the programs. The article has lost its neutrality. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I still feel that mention of Ferguson is merited for the lead, since again this was what made the program such a big deal. But, I agree that a blow-by-blow description of responses of various politicians is unnecessary and a case of WP:RECENTISM. -Darouet (talk) 03:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I completely buy the idea that Ferguson is what made the program a "big deal", but I think trying to balance the article back out would certainly be an improvement. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By way of example: [1]. -Darouet (talk) 04:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A spike in talking about a 20+ year old program doesn't make it a big deal. It makes it recent news. Notice the occasional bump. I bet I'd find an incident like a stolen gun or vehicle tied to one of those events. Also, look at how rapidly the spike dropped off after Ferguson, indicating that recentism is a strong factor. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if we're necessarily disagreeing. The spike in reporting following the riots in Ferguson and the appearance of military-style police in response is what led millions of people around the country to know about the program, and to the existence of this article. It wasn't a stolen gun or vehicle (though 1033 weapons have disappeared). However, all that said, I'm agreeing with you that the article does suffer from recentism, and it'd be great if you wanted to fix it! -Darouet (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

L*I'm talking about the minor bump in 2011 and early 2014. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here are a list of articles google news comes up with from 2011: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. -Darouet (talk) 03:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1033 program. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 07:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Law_Enforcement_Support_Office&oldid=1208055841"