Talk:Rampart scandal

Crime and Criminal Biography: Organized crime Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Organized crime task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Law Enforcement Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

California: Los Angeles Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force.

Bernard Parks

There is a surprising amount of evidence the Chief Bernard Parks was actively involved in covering this up. The coverup operation was fairly extensive. I hope to begin writing about this soon. There are just so many details to cover and I've barely scratched the surface on this article. Jonathan Stokes 04:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My ToDo List

As I have time, I'd like to add B.I.G., Suge Knight, and Chief Bernard Park's notability to the Rampart Scandal so I can link to/from those articles. Then, Frank Lyga, Nino Durden, and Brian Hewett definitely deserve their own articles. Then, there are a bunch of shooting victims I haven't even researched yet. This is a pretty huge topic, much larger than I first anticipated. It's tough to know where to begin. Jonathan Stokes 05:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article describes many of the worst offenses committed by Rampart Division during the CRASH days, but fails to adequately describe the extent of the abuse. Abuse was not limited to shootings and serious beatings... For everyone who was shot, hundreds suffered regular, targeted abuse from LAPD officers. Officers would walk into peoples homes and tell them to move away or expect more visits, they would tell middle-class residents to arm themselves and to "shoot, and make sure you kill them", guaranteeing police support for self-defense pleas. It was a scary time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk • contribs) 24 June 2009

ref formats

the refs formatting needs to fit guidelines, but good article. JoeSmack ^Talk 18:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:RampartLAPD.jpg

Image:RampartLAPD.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable Material

The article is based very heavily on material on the wsws.org (World Socialist Web Site) which is in my opinion neither a objective nor a credible source. If there is no opposition I believe we should try to find better sources for the parts where we can and delete the parts where we can't. Sirana (talk) 09:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please notice a new - yet to be reviewed article Rampart FIPs. Seeking review of that paper. The definitive -at this time, record on the Rampart scandal was and is the Blue Ribbon Review Panel report (2006, titled "Rampart Reconsidered". It was commissioned by the LAPD in 2003, was authored by a panel of experts, at the end of 3 years of investigations. It is second to none in reviewing the matter. --InproperinLA (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name

It seems to me that 'Scandal' should be lower case, but very few pages link to Rampart scandal. Should the page be moved? --Kevin W. 04:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would think since it's the official name of the incident it would be capped, no? – cacahuate ^talk 21:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to disagree. The official name was Rampart Area Corruption Incident. However, as the Blue Ribbon Review Panel pointed out, it was neither Rampart area specific, nor an incident, and therefore, the official name should be considered a misnomer.

I support the Rampart scandal format. --InproperinLA (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rampart "Scandal" Finally Ends.

On June 30, 2009, the city of Los Angeles FINALLY paid ex-Rampart officers Ed Ortiz, Brian Liddy, and Don Harper the 20 MILLION DOLLAR settlement they won in federal court. Federal Judge Carney declared in his legal opinion that LAPD and the city of LA violated the RICO statute in their treatment of the plaintiffs. Luckily for the city of LA, Judge Carney didn't triple the settlement amount to 45 million. He had the option to do just that.

These ex-officers endured 10 YEARS of personal agony waiting for justice...all because of the lies of Raphael Perez and Bernard Parks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemo38 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly the true facts in the matter. Please refer to the Blue Ribbon Review Panel to understand the current state of affairs.--InproperinLA (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC) --InproperinLA (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biggie Victim???

Ok can someone please tell me how biggie smalls is a victim of rampart. It says it in the section map at the bottom. I'm going to take this out. It's never been rpoved one way or the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OutCoppinH (talk • contribs) 01:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rampart FIPs

Please notice a new, yet to be reviewed entry on the related matter of Rampart FIPs. Seeking review of the entry. --InproperinLA (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The World Socialist Web Site?!?

The vast majority of this page uses The World Socialist Web Site as its only source. Come on. That violates so many Wikipedia guidelines. 10:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.94.188.9 (talk)

Refrence to the movie Crash

This article refrences the film crash saying the film features a white officer, killing a black officer, that is aquitted in self-defence, this isn't even remotly close to plot in the film crash. The white off-duty officer in the film kills a hitch hiker that is in his vehicle when he thinks he is going to pull a weapon out during a heated argument between the two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.67.51 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 28 January 2010

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Rampart scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Unsourced Material

In the sub-section, Ties to the Bloods, there are 3 statements there that have had a "citation needed" request for years (one for over 2 years; two for nearly 2.5 years). So I'm removing those 3 sentences under BLPREMOVE rules.Colbey84 (talk) 06:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Streetgangs.com

I think this content removed by an anonymous editor should stay out. "streetgangs.com" is not a reliable source: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Rampart_scandal&type=revision&diff=977248387&oldid=977248332

causa sui (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Causa sui Hah, didn't catch that. It should have been clearer in the edit summary of that anon. Keep up the good work everyone. A a s i m 14:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]