Talk:New York City Police Department

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of law enforcement. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. If you know of any articles that should be a part of this wikiproject, please place this banner - {{Law enforcement}} - on their talk pages, thankyou.

B

This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 Statistics 2 Salary 3 Structure 4 Special ops Division 5 Censorship 6 Structure 7 New York's Finest Taxi Service 8 Awards 9 Insignia 10 Homeland Security Funds 11 NYPD Emblem 12 Neutrality 13 A request to move Scandals and Corruption 14 Good Cop / Bad Cop

[edit] Statistics

Would anyone know if there is any statistic on what % of the NYPD are actually from NYC? I'd bet it's pretty small, but I was wondering if anyone had a source, and this seemed like a good place to ask--67.87.44.11 11:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

This doesn't talk about where they are actually originally from, but where they reside now. "NYPD officers must be residents of New York City or the Counties of Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, Rockland, Orange, or Putnam.[75] Mayor Giuliani estimated that approximately 60 percent of NYPD officers currently reside in the city.[76] Approximately 70 percent of the last Police Academy graduating class were New York City residents." [1]

I doubt anyone would have hard statistics, unless a study has been done, because it would suprise me if the NYPD collected this information themselves. --Quasipalm 13:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

A bit late on this, but it seems like the NYPD would have to have that information. Paychecks and W-2s have to get mailed somewhere, after all. - Flooey 23:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the NYPD did do a study in the early 1990's and found that somewhere around 60-70% of the cops were city residents when they were hired and over-all it was a 49/51% split between those who still did (the 49%) and those who had later moved.

[edit] Salary

Will someone instert a section on police pay. New cops (Jan 2006 class) will earn 25,000 then 32 after 6 months. It will rise to $59,588 after 5 1/2 years. This is horrible pay in NYC and attrocious when compared to surrounding counties' police department's top pay. (sry for spelling im on the run). --SomeGod

[edit] Structure

The Structure Section actually has two parts devoted to Aux Police, the first part being more of a promotion of the service, the second being more factual based. Suggest combining the two, with particular emphasis on the second one, while still integrating the first as well. hellenica 09:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Merged, hopefully it's still a neutral section. - SomeGod

I just edited the structure (before loggin in, *doh*) according to http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/bureau.html Winnie-MD 14:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Special ops Division

Just a thought, but there should be a different description of this division, as it seems to be a copy-paste from an official NYPD web page, and could be considred POV Vaud 19:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship

Hello, NYPD is censoring this article. Here is the whois on the IP that reverted undesiable reporting of common news in the "Scandal and Corruption" section of this article. Sara and Jeff Peter, please sign in and restrain your fellow employees from such acts, thank you.

 $ whois 206.212.185.253
 [Querying whois.arin.net]
 [whois.arin.net]
 
 OrgName:    New York City Police Department
 OrgID:      NYCPD
 Address:    One Police Plaza
 Address:    NDSS, Room 701
 City:       New York
 StateProv:  NY
 PostalCode: 10038
 Country:    US
 
 NetRange:   206.212.128.0 - 206.212.191.255
 CIDR:       206.212.128.0/18
 NetName:    NYPD-GOV
 NetHandle:  NET-206-212-128-0-1
 Parent:     NET-206-0-0-0-0
 NetType:    Direct Assignment
 NameServer: EXT-DNS1.NYPD.ORG
 NameServer: EXT-DNS2.NYPD.ORG
 Comment:
 RegDate:    1995-08-22
 Updated:    2004-04-13
 
 RTechHandle: SBE40-ARIN
 RTechName:   Berger, Sara
 RTechPhone:  +1-646-610-5069
 RTechEmail:  hostmaster@nypd.org
 
 OrgTechHandle: JPM75-ARIN
 OrgTechName:   McNamee, Jeff Peter
 OrgTechPhone:  +1-646-610-5069
 OrgTechEmail:  hostmaster@nypd.org
 
 # ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2006-03-30 19:10
 # Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.

Holon67 16:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Reported this censorship to the New York Times news department via email Holon67 16:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Structure

Would anyone be able to provide the numbers of supervisory personnel in the department:

Sergeants?

Lieutenants?

Captains?

Thanks, PJO

[edit] New York's Finest Taxi Service

I had heard about this service by the NYPD, where the corrupt cops would drive criminals where they needed to go for $100 a mile or more. I never really knew if it was true or not. Maybe this should be added. 68.52.56.111 01:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Wasnt that in the film "The Usual Suspects"

[edit] Awards

What are the ribbons that patrol officers wear above there badge? Is there a discription somewere?

[edit] Insignia

What's up with the insignia at the top of the page? The font and colors are completely wrong.

[edit] Homeland Security Funds

I removed this paragraph for three reasons: 1. It is neither a scandal nor corruption; 2. It is not cited (except for the one fact); and 3. it is conjecture and speculation, and thus POV:

In June, 2006, Michael Chertoff, the head of the United States Department of Homeland Security, announced that his department would cut the counter-terrorism budget for New York City by 40% ($124 million down from $207 million)[2]. Although the reasons for this might be ambiguous, many blame the City and the department for the cut. They argue that, instead of allocating money to combat terrorists, the City used the funds to increase the city's revenues by starting a new police initiative, called Operation Atlas. Cops assigned to Atlas were paid overtime using the federal funds but assigned to write a number of summonses (fines).

--DavidShankBone 18:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NYPD Emblem

For reasons that I cannot understand, user DavidShankBone insists on displaying the incorrect NYPD insigina on the web page. The one displyed on the page is inaccurate. The insignia image should be promptly removed and replaced with a more neutral different image.

• Elhombre72 13:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Assuming the worst in people is what makes this country so hateful. No, I did not know it was a complete misrepresentation of the police shield on the NYPD page. I saw a shield and New York Police Department. I wasn't paying close attention. I may be ignorant, I may not have "my facts straight," but I don't want to see a shield up that misrepresents the force. I wasn't paying attention; of that I'm guilty. But did you ever think to put on the "Talk" page why you are taking it down? Did you ever think to explain yourself? Or did you just decide that we are all cop-haters on Wikipedia and that you'll take the pompous action to take it down with no explanation? Perhaps in the future you should reach out for understanding instead of assuming people are jerks. It's a small step toward making this country a better place to live, and one you can do easily. I'll take the shield down myself [if inaccurate]. --DavidShankBone 14:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

What I don't understand is that the very shield you keep taking down appears as the first shield in the same photograph you posted. Can you tell us how it is inaccuarate or not "neutral"? --DavidShankBone 14:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

OK The fonts are not correct. The outside border is supposed to be yellow. The yellow displayed is the wrong shade, the color yellow on the actual insignia is more a bright yellow not an orange shade. The inner seal is inaccurate. The figure on the left is supposed to be defined and is a "colonist" holding a depth gauge. The figure on the right is supposed to be a native holding a bow. Go to this page for more info, http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/ Elhombre72 15:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Elhombre, you are wrong on this issue. I researched not only the site you gave, but also did a Google image search, and the shield displayed in this article is exactly the same one I found in my searches. You mention trivial issues (color shades), when you first came on here lambasting the shield as an obvious misrepresentation. These trifles you have are obvious? There are folks who have tried to take the shield down because they disagree with it being on the page, period. If you have watched this page for months, as you claim, then you know this. Had you not posted the conglomeration of patches, I would have thought you one of those people after you sketched out your argument. If you can find an image that shows how blatantly inaccurate the NYPD shield is on this page, I'll agree to it being replaced. But so far, you really haven't made much of a case. I'm betting that the shield now displayed came from the NYPD itself; a person might alter an image to show someone shoveling dog poop or something, but nobody would bother to alter the shading and the definition of the characters. I actually had difficulty finding a better emblem. I'd like to see what you can come up with. Post it here on this Talk page and we can all see what you are talking about. --DavidShankBone 16:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me?, I thought this was a community of ideas.

• I am not here to get into petty disputes regarding the image. I can tell you it is the wrong image. Several months ago, the correct image was displayed, then one day it changed. I am sure other readers and users noticed it too. Well, I have the correct image on file from a irrefutable source. However, I am not going to post because it is a law enforcement image and I don't need anyone from NYPD looking for me. I appreciate your challenge and your passion regarding this issue, but as far as I am concerned, this issue is concluded. I refuse to get into a conflict regarding your image, no matter how incorrect it is. Furthermore, DavidShankBone, I can assure you that I will not be making any more edits on the NYPD page. DavidShankBone you have the floor to yourself, all to yourself.

• For anyone interested....http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/chfpers/patch-history.html; or http://idealogian.yucs.org/archives/2004/07/

• C'est la Vie, Elhombre72 01:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Elhombre, this is not a community of ideas, it's a community of truth seekers. I responded to this entry below. --DavidShankBone 12:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

elhombre72 response: Then post the truth, the correct image, which you ended up doing anyway. You seem to want to have the last word...be my guest.

Okay, I'll take the last word: In the future, if you have a problem with a page, it would be better if you correct it yourself instead of griping about it, waiting for somebody else to pick up the ball and rectify your issue. You did not do this. If you see an incorrect emblem, it would be better to replace it with the correct one. I'm done. --DavidShankBone 14:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

I have followed this page for several months and I have noticed that many of the changes and entries are not neutral, especially the "Scandal" and "Corruption" entries. Several entries use bombastic language and seem to have some type of agenda. Many of the entries lack proper citations and are often linked to "left wing" articles. I formally question the neutrality of this page.

• Elhombre72 14:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Elhombre, I don't think anybody minds having the page questioned but you need to articulate what you find POV, instead of leaving it for us to figure out. If the reference is to the use of the word "brutally" when talking about a riot the police incited, then I disagree with you. "Forcefully" is not the right word when the Police Commissioner himself said the actions of the precinct were to blame for a riot. Do you see, that "forcefully" trying to enforce a park curfew waters down what actually happened? The police aren't all bad and I appreciate the work they do (when I actually see them). But that doesn't mean they have always done what's right. But you haven't made any arguments, just accusations. --DavidShankBone 15:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, the entry needs citation. Brutal is a harsh word.... This is not about cop hating it is about a neutral report of an incident. If the Police Commissioner said it ok, but which one? When? Quote the PC. If the police were wrong, they are wrong...but, what I question it the method of articulation. When I read some of the entries made by other users, they strike as sophomoric and agenda driven. For example the entry about Volpe,

• "On August 9, 1997, Police Officer Justin Volpe in Brooklyn brutalized Abner Louima with a broken broom handle in the 70th Precinct bathroom. Officer Volpe eventually pled guilty and received a sentence of 30 years in federal prison. Other officers were also implicated and convicted on charges stemming from the initial cover-up."

• Would it suffice to say "Police Officer Justin Volpe in Brooklyn 'attacked' Abner Louima...", I don't know maybe a user with more skill can do a better job, surely I cannot.

Elhombre72 15:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Abner Louima was sodomized with a broken broomstick handle. The dictionary definition of "brutalize" means "To make cruel, harsh, or unfeeling" and "To treat cruelly or harshly." Attack has similar denotations. Attack: "To set upon with violent force: aggress, assail, assault, beset, fall on." Either word works, in my opinion. Feel free to change it. But what does not work is changing "brutal" to "forceful." It means two different things when I say "I forcibly opened the door," and "I brutally opened the door." Sometimes, ElHombre, one must call a spade a spade. The NYPD is a great force with problems (past or present). Afterall, humans make up the department. But when one makes attempts to water down those problems, they endanger their ability to be addressed. Or "Those who don't learn history are doomed to repeat it." It was with brutality these things happened, like it or not. The trick is to not have them happen again, not to make that they happened more palatable. --DavidShankBone 16:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Elhombre72 18:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC) response:

Let us clarify something DavidShankBone - Mr. Louima was not "sodomized" by a broken broomstick handle. Under the penal law of New York State "sodomy" (Criminal sexual act) can not occur when a foreign object is inserted in the rectum or vagina. The crime agaianst Mr. Louima is under what the NY penal law would classify as "Aggravated Sexual Abuse", a foreign object penetrating the rectum by force and causing physical injury. Under New York State law, sodomy can only occur between two human beings without the use of any foreign objects (it is a different crime). Police Officer Volpe was prosecuted under federal statutes and subsequently pled guilty. As far as I am concerned, what he did was horrible. More importantly those who did not prevent the horrific act and those who attempted to cover it up are just as bad.

New York State Penal Law info: http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi

Second, your entries are great, but could you tone down your ranting? At anytime have I sided with anyone? What I look for is neutrality, that is it. You seem to be very passionate regarding these issues and I appreciate your eloquence, but I don't need to be lectured.

DavidShankBone response:

Elhombre, I don't understand where you are coming from. First, thanks for all the effort for to research sodomy, and you should contribute some work to the sodomy page; however I wasn't using sodomy legally, but biblically. Second, you use a log-on ID that appears to soley have been created for editing this page. You tell us you have followed the page for months, but then immediately start taking things down (the same things that have been issues with other editors, not just me) and changing wording. My wording. I wrote the TSP Police Riot article, and I inserted that paragraph. You start ranting, without giving any support, about "left wing" articles and the wrong shield. When I ask you to give proof, you complain about shading and other things that are trifles. You call my reasonable responses, in a reasonable tone given the above, rants. Yes, if there's a better, more accurate shield, then it should be up. But you didn't do that - You replaced it with a poor quality photograph, where the building was obscured by one of my least favorite public art pieces. Even the conglomeration of shields would have been better. Then, you lastly tell us you in fact have the correct picture, but allude to vague cloak and dagger stuff about law enforcement finding you so you'll never give it up. Then you act like a kid who is going to take his ball and go home. And you tell me you don't feel you need to be lectured? Dude, you've acted inappropriately from your first edit. Come off it. And ditch the sockpuppet. --DavidShankBone 04:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

elhombre72 response to the above:

1. Biblical vs. legal definition for sodomy, "?". I was discussing a horrible crime that happen in our time and what the legal definition in New York State was...very simple.

I used it as a verb, not as a noun, and if you need to understand why your correcting me on my use of the word was off target go to the sodomy page and look at the different uses.--DavidShankBone 14:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

elhombre72 response, Again I was explaining a factual legal definition, that is it. I know what it means, but you fail to understand the context of the legal definition in terms of the crime that occurred...

2. David, is it possible for you to comment on this topic in a more couteous and respectful manner? Do you like to engage in personal attacks? Cloak and dagger? Listen, it is my choice right? This is the USA right? Regarding the picture of NYPD HQ, is it not an accurate picture? Is it not police HQ? Is the sculpture not part of its grounds, even though you may not like it? The picture might be "poor" quality in your opinion, but at least it is factual. I explained what was incorrect with the NYPD patch image that was displayed and you called it " trifles". Plain and simple, the the image is incorrect and therefore, invalid. Please review the accurate inner seal of the insignia.

You miss the point, which was that your behavior was inappropriate from the start. What you should have done is replaced the emblem with the correct emblem. Not with a poor quality photograph. --DavidShankBone 14:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

3. My login is used to access Wikipedia in general, not only for the "NYPD" page. I have come to realize you want to dominate this issue, so be my guest...

You make a lot of accusations, but you don't back them up. Your comments and your actions are all in the history of the page and above. For someone who has always used this ID, you have only used it to edit the NYPD page and some councilwoman (where you blanked the page). Yet you seem to have a firm grasp on how to edit, post images, etc. Not a sockpuppet? Hmmm...okay. --DavidShankBone 14:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

elhombre72 response Editing: I made an intial error on that page and then I tried to correct, sheesh...

4. Image review:

Read my response to this under number 2. It has become obvious you only want to argue and have the patch taken down. I'm done with this silly arguing. You won, anyhow - I replaced the emblem myself. So you should be happy. --DavidShankBone 14:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Winning? nobody "won" here. Does this read familiar? "I'm the black sheep in a black family and I righteously bah bah bah all night."[3] See ya....DUDE... Elhombre72 13:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A request to move Scandals and Corruption

--67.142.130.34 08:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)I have decided that i am sick of the corruption section being the first thing you see when you get to this page and i belive more history of the department should be talked about --67.142.130.34 08:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it would improve the page to move this section to less prominence. I think it lends a negative tone to the entirety of the article. Yes, it's history--true. But compared to the other history sections, it takes up a lot of space, and seems to grow. It needs its own page with a smaller section directing people to it. I request to make it the new Number 5 as a paragraph, with a larger article page. --DavidShankBone 04:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It has been a week since I put this request up. I will give one more week before I go ahead and do it, if no objections are raised. --DavidShankBone 17:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it should stay, its an important section and the current article on exceeds article limit by 2k, which really isnt a limit anymore. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it should stay. Scandals and corruption are an important aspect of the NYPD's (and most any other law enforcement agency) history. Though, the material in the section is very much incomplete and unbalanced (covering 1970s-present), and can use cleanup. I have some reference materials that cover NYPD history further back to the beginning. I'll put this article on my to-do list, and work on improving the history section. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 16:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Obviously the NYPD and friends is monitoring and changing this page to their interests. If you read above talks, you will see what I mean. First, someone censored my contributions, IPs I traced right into the NYPD offices themselves. Second, in the above conversation, a mysterious user, Elhombre72, is accused of existing solely to edit this page. This user then mysteriously is erased from wikipedia. Someone should start tracking these issues and write a book, do some journalistic research and uncover the whole nasty affair. Why? This is the key to the potential downfall of and undermining of the reputation of Wikipedia as a valid form of information on anything other than the most agreed upon and unsensitive issues. Experts will continously "appear" out of nowhere and edit Wikipedia to suit their clients needs, i.e. there are vigilantes, paid or not, and they must be dealt with. Keep things where they are. This wasn't always at the top. Someone obviously is attempting to create disruption around this section, either to get it moved to the bottom of the article or removed altogether, maybe made into a small, insignificant section. As far as I am concerned, you all work for the NYPD. Holon67 19:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

RESPONSE TO ABOVE: WOW!...the mysterious Elhombre72 23:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a complete removal but a summation leading to a larger, more expansive article. If we continue to expand this article, half the article is going to be about scandals and corruption, and that does damage to the page's reputation. And I agree, it can be expanded. For instance, these controversies aren't included. But if it expands, then I'll ask for arbitration from the larger community to have it moved to it's own page, which is what is supposed to be done. Especially on an article so lengthy. That there are scandals and corruption won't disappear, though. Ideas? --DavidShankBone 15:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

On the same note of damaging the reputation of the article, its probably not a good idea to have the scandals and corruption bullet points so high up in the article. While referemces to the relative lack of corruption for the organizations size are provided, putting a list of scandals above the sections that explain the hierachry of the department gives a negative connotation. --Zippy1981 23:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Cop / Bad Cop

• I am going to put forward a crazy theory. After the NYPD's initial attempts to control this article failed (see above talks), one of their PR consultants offered this suggestion: create one good cop, and one bad cop, using the bad cop to do stupid things on the article, and the good cop to come in, using reasonable dialogue, to form a warm, fuzzy relationship with the wikipedia community. After the initial battering back of the bad cop by the good cop, the good cop would have pretty much free reign to "reasonably" crush and route out any resistance to their from-then-on "reasonable" assessments. See the current situation (circa Sept, 2006) whereby some mysterious person has moved the controversy section to the top of the article, creating an absurd situation that needs obvious steps to correct. Now our good cop will step in with his/her "reason" to correct the situation, and in the process, reasonably reduce this section to insignificance, and forever-more monitor the article for "integrity". Let's watch. And see if I am a paranoid wacko -- no harm in that -- or just crazy. Cheers and love Holon67 06:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)