Talk:Copwatch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Copwatch is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject. Please Join, Create, and Assess. Remember, the project aims for no vandalism and no conflict, if an article needs attention regarding vandalism or breaches of wikiquette, please add it to the article watch list.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

[edit] Sherman Austin==

Is Sherman Austin, the convicted felon and anarchist, the same fellow who is involved in CopWatch in Los Angeles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.122.14 (talk) 22:15, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as seen in the following article and interview: http://potw.news.yahoo.com/s/potw/40/somebodys-watching-you Factcheck 4uwingnuts 00:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Near-total lack of reputable sources

The only reliable reference in the whole article is a single USA Today article, and it was misattributed in at least one statement contained in the article.

Most of the statements in the article are entirely without attribution.Factcheck 4uwingnuts 19:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I have added citations for everything that had been tagged, and removed the statements added by Divantrainin about policies that CW does not have, since one of them was contradicted by the sources, and I could find no evidence for the other. Thanks for your help in cleaning up this article. Mycota 18:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What the...?!

The original Copwatch article and discussion page were deleted by Jeffery O. Gustafson. I've been working on this article for months, and now there is no record that it ever existed! Can someone instruct me on how to re-instate this article? Also, how do I report this to admin? I think this is a serious issue, as the user in question did not even post to the discussion page before deleting! Mycota 18:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no obligation to say anything anywhere on the talk page when deleting this article. And because you asked calmly ("!"), I have restored the article and placed it on AfD. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Just an observation, without getting involved: Jeffrey, you're coming off, to me at least, as though you were attempting to flaunt your powers of administration; this isn't a social hierarchy we're creating; it's an encyclopedia. Canaen 09:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Jeffrey O. Gustafson is one of the large downsides to the Wiki. As suggested above, he has earned a reputation of deleting articles simply because HE does not like them. He is not interested in creating an encyclopedia, he is interested only in flaunting his "admin" powers. Many, many relevant articles have fallen vicim to Jeffrey's delete button. Don Henry 12:32, 02 July 2006 (UTC)

Articles may get deleted simply due to no one voting aside from a few delete votes; actually reading all the AfDs can be messy & time consuming. JeffBurdges 16:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe this article was ever submitted to AfD in the first place. It was simply deleted with no warning. It was only put on AfD after I complained. Mycota 16:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I linked to my quotes but I don't believe it is in the right place. Also, one has to register to see the link.

[edit] Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splash^talk 00:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changed Forums and Database

I removed most of the Forums section and merged it with the Database section. It originally read like an advertisement for the forums and talked about non-notable "Civil Rights Investigators". I think it is also important to point out that the database and forums are totally separate from any actual Copwatch organizations (as far as I can tell). Therefore, any discussion and/or criticism of the websites should be separate from discussion and criticism of the groups themselves. Mycota 22:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perspective

I removed "from the perspective of the copwatchers" from the sentence about Know Your Rights forums. It was not clear to me why that needed to be included. I wouldn't have a problem with it if it were made more clear. Mycota 00:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I was going to do just that yesterday, until I got disconnected and forgot. Canæn 03:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed NPOV statement from "Methods"

I reverted the changes by 70.189.170.32. The entire "Online activities" section was removed, with no reason given.

I also removed the NPOV statement in the "Copwatch methods" section. It talked about a tactic advocated on the Copwatch.com website, but said that the purpose was to "bait" the police. This is loaded language. I moved the statement to the paragraph about that website and used language that more closely fits the language on the website. The editor may be of the opinion that it is meant to bait the police, but this is simply an opinion.

[edit] Retagging with POV-check

I've put POV-check on the page, because of the following sentence: "Each group is autonomous and self-governing, but most groups share common goals: exposing themselves, preventing criminal investigations from taking place, defending the right to be an idiot, and working towards shedding any personal accountability." erhudy 13:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I've removed that vandalism and reverted back to the original wording. Mycota 18:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unbiased view needed

Its my opinion this article needs to explore the whole Copwatch groups more in depth. As it sits, except for a few lines in the beginning, it seems to only reiterate the propaganda (as in being one sided) that the group itself posts, which is very opinionated.

Just be mindful that blatant criticism does not equal NPOV, and since this article is about a group with a mission, the stating of that mission is not neccessarily pushing a point of view. It's just reporting facts. Also be mindful that picking and choosing facts is POV, however so is cutting out facts. Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png 07:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed paragraph from intro

I removed the following paragraph from the intro:

They present themselves only as a group that wants to expose rogue and corrupt police officers. Some of their literature may appear to be against ALL police, using slogans such as "Pigs protecting the rich of America," and they are therefore viewed by some as a radical group with an agenda extending beyond simply being a "police watchdog."

This is horribly POV and includes uncited quotations. And who are these "some" who view Copwatch as a radical group, anyway? Besides this, "they" do not present themselves as a group at all. As stated in the article, Copwatch is a loose network of autonomous groups, not a centrally-organized body. If a particular group has made specific statements, that group should be named. If it comes from one of the websites listed in the article, those are not affiliated with actual Copwatch groups and statements on them should not be presented as official dogma.

That being said, this article badly needs sources for other statements as well, but I'm not as picky about them right now since they're mostly in line with what is on official Copwatch websites. Mycota 04:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] By ignoring alterior motives, the entire article becomes propaganda

Well, here's your citation source, the Copwatch 101 pamphlet. Towards the bottom (Okay, the quote was a little off, but the message is pretty clear) Saying the Copwatch movement cannot be categorized as an anti-police group because it has autonomous bodies rather than a centralized structure is like saying the KKK is not really a hate group by the same rationale. If you want to look at the top cartoon of the Democrat donkey and the Republican elephant clinking glasses as businessmen watch over the throngs of SWAT team geared pigs, and tell me there is nothing here more than a simple community group that wants to reign in rogue police officers, fine, but I think there is evidence to the contrary. For instance, it is hard to see how articles blaming the New York City Police Department for the deaths on 9/11 Top of the pagehave anything to do with their stated motive of exposing police corruption and brutality, nor does how "federal statistics show that cops jobs' are not all that dangerous" have anything to do with brutality or corruption. The line was added merely to raise the possibility that the group has alterior motives. Many political groups present themselves as 'community services' while trying to achieve political goals. If you want to make a seperate section at the end addressing these concerns, thats all good, but to ignore them is to make the article only presenting the face that the organizers of Copwatch wish to portray, which makes it a propaganda piece, the same as if I wrote and article about Hezbollah and didn't add anything about violence.

I think it would be great to have a well-reasoned and documented Criticisms section. Go for it. But it would need to be criticisms from other sources, not just your personal opinions. I'm sure there are websites and other sources that are critical of Copwatch. In fact, the Resources list includes critical articles from police themselves. Maybe you could summarize those articles. My point is that just putting your own opinion into an encyclopedia article is not appropriate. The favorable statements can all be backed up by published "propaganda" from Copwatch. The same needs to be said for any criticism. Also, my point about autonomous groups is that a blanket statement about all Copwatch groups is not possible, unless it has to do with the basic principles outlined by all Copwatch groups. If you have specific complaints about specific groups, please name the groups. They all have different approaches and ideological stances regarding the necessity of police, tactics, etc. Mycota 05:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"Also, my point about autonomous groups is that a blanket statement about all Copwatch groups is not possible, unless it has to do with the basic principles outlined by all Copwatch groups. If you have specific complaints about specific groups, please name the groups. They all have different approaches and ideological stances regarding the necessity of police, tactics, etc. "

That right there is a microcosm of the outlook we're dealing with here. You have stepped through the looking glass. Enter the hallowed halls of COPWATCH and you will discover a world where people are encouraged to nurture views that police forces are, primarily and by design, a tool of oppression by the powerful, and that the world would function in harmony if only everyone would embrace anarchy. Many of the people posting there and here on these topics are, themselves, anarchists. They and their ideas have been marginalized by literally everyone around them, so I think you will find a certain stubborn unwillingness to acknowledge facts. I realize this sounds like a pretty scathing criticism but I just want to explain what I see here and the difficulties of arguing with these people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factcheck 4uwingnuts (talk • contribs) 07:19, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Corrected factual misstatement about William Cardenas video

The article previous contained a factually inaccurate statement, indicating that Cardenas is "apparently restrained" in the video. In fact, he is unrestrained and fighting with police to prevent himself from being restrained. This is reflected in the article which is cited to support the (originally incorrect) statement, so no further citation is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factcheck 4uwingnuts (talk • contribs) 19:08, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beating of Robert Davis

Did a Copwatch member tape the beating of Robert Davis in New Orleans, LA? That was a pretty horrific scene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factcheck 4uwingnuts (talk • contribs) 07:57, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference to Copwatch websites

It is either allowed or not allowed -- not "selectively allowed".Factcheck 4uwingnuts 22:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to what CW groups say about their own activities or what their principles are, I think it's totally acceptable to cite their own websites. Mycota 00:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I would also add that all edits need to conform to Wikipedia:Notability which states that "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Please provide references to all additions to help us ensure that this standard is met. I strongly suspect that the topics of discussion in the Copwatch forum fail notability along with the exact wording used on miscellaneous Copwatch posters. - N1h1l 18:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read the guidelines you are referencing. The topic is already designated as notable. As quoted directly from the Notability guideline,

"Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content

Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by other guidelines such as those on using reliable sources and on handling trivia. The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standard of the notability guidelines."

You may also note that the material added also does not satisfy the "Trivia" designation and is effective protest literature both produced by our organization and well within the aims and methods of the organizations as stated on our main website, on the websites of our various member organizations, and in this article.

Please stop vandalizing this topic and either make substantive contributions to the editorial process or leave it alone.Factcheck 4uwingnuts 19:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Look drama-queen, no one is vandalizing this article. We are arguing over notability and sources. You can start your self-righteous tirade about my being a vandal when I replace the article with "Copwatsch Is fuLLof wankers".

Meanwhile, you have as of yet to produce a source, let alone a reliable source, for any of your edits. And if the exist of a discussion on 9/11 conspiracy is not trivia, I'm not sure what is. - N1h1l 21:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undone

All right, I will undo this and I apologize to you. I would like to discuss this further but will just make the undo for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factcheck 4uwingnuts (talk • contribs) 06:36, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The list of policies that Copwatch doesn't have is infinite

The statements repeatedly added by DivaNTrainin about Copwatch's lack of policies about obeying the law, etc. is ridiculous. First of all, there is no single Copwatch entity, so it makes no sense to talk about Copwatch's policies on anything. Each group has its own policies. That is what is meant by the statement "Each group is autonomous and self-governing". Aside from that, the list of policies that Copwatch groups do not have is infinite. They don't have policies about how long members can wear their hair, or how many times they should brush their teeth in a day, or whether to make fun of police officers behind their backs. And since these policies do not exist, there is no way to cite them. Therefore, they should not be mentioned in the article, unless another source has mentioned the lack of these policies. I have pointed out one specific policy that is held by some Copwatch groups regarding police non-interference (with a link to a page with that policy listed), but I made a point of stating that it may not hold true for all groups. When it comes to generalizing about CW policies, that's about the best one can do. However, if someone wishes to start a Criticism section (which is badly needed), please do so! It is clear that the statements from this user are meant as criticism, so why not go out and find some reputable sources that criticize Copwatch and use them as the basis for a Criticism section? You might want to start with the sources in the Further Reading section. Mycota 02:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The above paragraph was deleted by DivaNTrainin and replaced with other text. Then his/her comments were deleted by an anonymous user. This behavior is totally unacceptable and will not be tolerated. Mycota 04:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Mycota. And I had to re-add the above comment after DivaNTrainin removed it, and altered the title of Mycota's statement. This is absolutely unacceptable. Murderbike 22:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FULL Cardenas video?

Does anybody have a link to an archive that shows more than about 9 seconds of this footage? I know there's a lot more than that out there and I don't understand where the rest of the video is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factcheck 4uwingnuts (talk • contribs) 19:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Cardenas-YouTube.jpg

Image:Cardenas-YouTube.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 18:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism by DivaNtrainin

After several edit wars between DivaNtrainin and other editors, there was a notice placed on this user's talk page asking her/him to cease the vandalism of this article. The user asked why his/her edits were considered vandalism and Factchecker atyourservice responded. Because of this user's history of deleting and/or editing the comments left by others on talk pages, I'd like to include my own response below so that other editors are aware of the issues and there is another "paper trail". Of course, feel free to comment on the appropriateness of my response.

Diva, I'd like to add a couple things. The edits that you repeatedly make to the article are not in and of themselves vandalism, but it's your behavior surrounding those edits that has several other editors upset. You will need to behave in a much more mature manner if you wish to be accepted as a serious editor. That means no more deleting or altering statements made by other editors on talk pages. It means no more repeated reversions of your clearly controversial edits before even attempting to build consensus on the article's talk page.

Factchecker has suggested one possible way to resolve this conflict constructively. But I think that approach fails for one important reason. As I have repeatedly pointed out, there is no such thing as a single policy for all Copwatch groups. They all have their own policies. If we are going to speak about Copwatch policies (as we should), we need to be very clear about which Copwatch entity we are speaking about. In my statement about Copwatch policies I mention one specific policy (non-interference with police) that is held by at least one group. And this policy is clearly laid out in an article that I cited. But to say that this policy applies to all groups would be completely wrong. Likewise, as has been pointed out repeatedly, the Copwatch forums and copwatch.com website are totally and completely independent of all working Copwatch groups.Let me put it another way: there is no evidence that there is any relationship between those websites and any organization that calls itself Copwatch. For some reason, some editors have a very hard time understanding this concept. It's as if people were pointing to things said on the anti-Bush parody website whitehouse.org as if they were official statements of the White House. As in that case, they just happen to have the same name. That's it. If you want to talk about things said on those websites, that's great, but please do not state that they are representative of "Copwatch" as a whole or have any relationship whatsoever to the actual Copwatch groups listed at the end of the article.Mycota 01:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This merits a few responses.

First, this point you make is primarily a semantic argument about the wording of a statement. Diva could just as easily write "Copwatch groups do not have policies to ensure their members are obeying the law." She would, of course, need to find a source indicating this. Obviously, she's not likely to find a source for this on any Copwatch website even if it is true. In fact, she's much more likely to find those individual websites hiding or disavowing the possibly illegal activities of their members; for example, Copwatch LA features the following text on its website: 'Disclaimer: CopWatchLA.org does not encourage the use of illegal activity. The information found here is for educational purposes only. The views and opinions posted to this site by other users do not necessarily reflect those of Cop Watch LA, the domain name holder of CopWatchLA.org, or those affiliated with CopWatchLA.org or the organization. By visiting this site you agree to understand these terms.' These are not the words of a confidently law-abiding organization.

Second, I would like to stress that I personally am not "having trouble understanding" that the Copwatch local groups and the Copwatch website are separate, completely unrelated groups; rather, I'm really not sure I buy it. Wikipedia policy requires that notable and controversial groups be given ample opportunity to express their views clearly, but they also require that Wikipedia not be used as a PR tool or an outlet for propaganda. In my opinion it remains to be shown that the Copwatch website is NOT affiliated in any way with the local groups or their members; at the very least it is clearly not a parody or crank website (such as Whitehouse.org) that should be immediately disregarded. Anyway, the local organizations share aims and tactics with the forum website, and members active in the local organizations post there. From the outset, the waters are thoroughly muddied by the fact the individual Copwatch groups claim to be affiliated with each other and yet completely independent and separate; is Copwatch an organization or not? If individual Copwatch groups' statements about their own status were a little more clear -- instead of disavowing any relationship among the local organizations and even (as seen above) disavowing the actions of their own members -- it might be a little easier to solidly establish that Copwatch.com is an unaffiliated group that happens to share the same name, political aims, and rhetoric. But to me, it just looks like another instance of the activists carefully shielding themselves from prosecution despite knowingly engaging in or contributing to criminal activity, just as Copwatch LA carefully shields itself from prosecution by disclaiming that it doesn't encourage illegal activity, and that any information about illegal activity is strictly for educational purposes.

In a nutshell, while it would seem improper under Wiki policy to explicitly claim that Copwatch.com is affiliated with any local Copwatch group, I see no solid evidence to the contrary or anything to indicate the need for a separate topic or a prohibition of discussion of Copwatch.com within this article.

As an aside, you mentioned that the policy of non-interference is held by just one of the Copwatch groups. Why, then, did you write that "Copwatch organizations generally abide by" that policy? Does the LA Times article say this?Factchecker atyourservice 17:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

All of this aside Factchecker, the main issue I see here has to do with citation. Citing something like Copwatch.org (or any other blog) is just not acceptable. A reliable third-party source is necessary for controversial material like the absurd claim that Copwatch DOESN'T have some sort of policy. Copwatch is not some huge organization, with a hierarchy and guidelines. It is just a name that groups can use. Murderbike 17:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If Diva can find information about a local Copwatch group's policies on that group's website, then that is fair game for citation here as long as it is presented at face value, i.e. no analysis, criticism, etc... all of that would be original research. If Diva can find statements on Copwatch.com which are ABOUT Copwatch.com and which are made by administrators or otherwise "official" spokesman (e.g. posts by mere users wouldn't count, but the website's own FAQ would) then that is also fair game as I understand the rules. And if these are NOT acceptable, then a great deal of this article is already improperly sourced.Factchecker atyourservice 19:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, well, the issue at hand is Diva's addition of information about policies that Copwatch does NOT have. Does that FAQ have something about policies that Copwatch does NOT have? Murderbike 19:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with people adding and citing information from the Copwatch websites. In fact, I think that's essential. My only problem is in conflating the websites and actual Copwatch groups. You say you see "no evidence to the contrary" that Copwatch.com is affiliated with a local group, but that's certainly not grounds to make such an assertion. When making a claim, what one needs to present is positive evidence, not lack of negative evidence. Again, I just think when editors speak about the "policies" of Copwatch.com, they need to make it clear that they're not the policies of "Copwatch". Is that so much to ask?

Your question about my "generally abide by" qualification is a valid one. Honestly, this was based on my personal correspondence with Copwatch groups. Since that kind of information is not verifiable, I will gladly change the wording to make it clear that only this one group has a publicly-stated policy on this issue.

You may be right when you say that the disclaimer on the LA website is intended to shield members. But that is certainly not evidence that members are actually engaging in illegal activity. Again, absence of evidence to the contrary is not the same as positive evidence. If you want to mention the disclaimer in the article, I support that 100%.

Finally, I'd like to address your concerns about the nature of the Copwatch network. At the recent Copwatch conference in July 2007, it was agreed that Copwatch groups would continue to function as a network of organizations with similar goals rather than a centralized organizing body with unified policies. Therefore, since there is no centralized organizing body, there can be no central unified policies. The conference was written about in Issue #26 of Left Turn magazine. Since the text is not available online, I'll reproduce the relevant portion here:

"A movement. A network. Not a national organization.... The national network created at the conference was meant only to support the work of local community organizing; it is not a national headquarters or national organization creating a top-down model of organizing. Each community has its own specific needs and resources to best organize itself. The network will serve only as a way to share strategy, experience and create discussion around this decentralized movement known as Copwatch." Mycota 20:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

First, to Murder, I'm not arguing in favor of restoring anything Diva has ever written, nor using Copwatch.com as a source for claims about local Copwatch groups, nor doing original research to establish in this article that the local orgs are related to the website.

To Mycota, I'm in agreement with everything you said in the first paragraph. Personally I think, given what I've seen, that there may be considerable cross-membership between the two groups. It even appears, outwardly, to be the central, national organization that is said not to exist. I would actually be happy to learn that literally none of the local orgs are involved with that website because I've found it to contain some pretty hateful and irrational commentary. Obiously, though, none of what I'm saying be suitable for Wiki except for the talk pages. At the same time, it's not really clear to me how to address the Copwatch.com website. While you are right that there is no direct evidence of any relationship, and seemingly an outright published statement would be necessary to assert one here, and, additionally, it seems that none of the local Copwatch websites seems to link to the Copwatch.com site, there still is circumstantial evidence (again, in my opinion) of crossover. At the same time, even if there is no association whatsoever, Copwatch.com seems to be notable in the same way and for the same reasons as the local copwatch orgs. But how do we handle it? Merely keep it in a separate section? Include an explicit claim that there is no relationship, even if we don't have a factual reference for that? Keep it in a separate section but say it is unclear whether they are related or have cross membership? Do we split it into a separate article? If so, would we make any mention of a possible relationship in either article, and how would the distinction be reflected on a disambiguation page?

As for the abiding-by comment, I can see how it would be tempting to phrase it that way, especially if it's true. I didn't actually mention it to challenge your integrity, but I think it highlights the confusion I'm talking about. I have no doubt that members or even entire chapters other than the one with the official policy DO actually abide by it, and many other shared policies. I also expect that members of different chapters correspond with each other to some extent, and they also seem to share tactics and political ideology. In that sense, you could view Copwatch as an institution that *does* have some universal policies and defining themes. Yet the organizations stress that this is not the case.

With Copwatch LA, I agree the disclaimer does not imply illegal activity, the same as desiring privacy does not imply having something to hide. Furthermore, a disclaimer is a reasonable measure for a potentially controversial site, but at the same time I think that unique position also brings a responsibility to aggressively discourage or even prohibit discussion which encourages illegal violence, even by participants who believe it is justified, and even when the speech may be legal insofar as it does not actually result in violence or criminality, because allowing or perhaps encouraging such discussion would tend to, sometimes, actually produce it, and also obstruct discussion of non-violent means. From that point of view, the phrasing "for educational purposes only" offends me in that it DOES seem to imply an intention to discuss illegal violence. I do not believe in violent political activism, not least because it is self-defeating. This is not to say that armed revolution is inherently wrong, but please remember that the difference between violent political activism and genuine revolutionary activity is how many millions of people agree with one's methods and goals.::::First, to Murder, I'm not arguing in favor of restoring anything Diva has ever written, nor using Copwatch.com as a source for claims about local Copwatch groups.

To Mycota, I'm in agreement with everything you said in the first paragraph. Personally I think, given what I've seen, that there may be considerable cross-membership between the two groups. It even appears, outwardly, to be the central, national organization that is said not to exist. I would actually be happy to learn that literally none of the local orgs are involved with that website because I've found it to contain some pretty hateful and irrational commentary. Obiously, though, none of what I'm saying be suitable for Wiki except for the talk pages. At the same time, it's not really clear to me how to address the Copwatch.com website. While you are right that there is no direct evidence of any relationship, and seemingly an outright published statement would be necessary to assert one here, and, additionally, it seems that none of the local Copwatch websites seems to link to the Copwatch.com site, there still is circumstantial evidence (again, in my opinion) of crossover. At the same time, even if there is no association whatsoever, Copwatch.com seems to be notable in the same way and for the same reasons as the local copwatch orgs. But how do we handle it? Merely keep it in a separate section? Include an explicit claim that there is no relationship, even if we don't have a factual reference? Keep it in a separate section but say it is unclear whether they are related or have cross membership? Do we split it into a separate article? If so, would we make any mention of a possible relationship, and how would the distinction be reflected on a disambiguation page?

With Copwatch LA, I agree the disclaimer does not imply illegal activity, the same as desiring privacy does not imply having something to hide. Furthermore, a disclaimer is a reasonable measure for a potentially controversial site, but at the same time I think that unique position also brings a responsibility to aggressively discourage or even prohibit discussion which encourages illegal violence, even by participants who believe it is justified, and even when the speech may be legal insofar as it does not actually result in violence or criminality, because allowing or perhaps encouraging such discussion would tend to, sometimes, actually produce it, and also obstruct discussion of non-violent means. From that point of view, the phrasing "for educational purposes only" offends me in that it DOES seem to imply an intention to discuss illegal violence. I do not believe in violent political activism, not least because it is self-defeating. This is not to say that armed revolution is inherently wrong, but please remember that the difference between violent political activism and genuine revolutionary activity is how many millions of people agree with one's methods and goals.Factchecker atyourservice 22:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I actually think you've really crossed the line with discussing an article on a talk page, and discussing the subject, which is inappropriate. Talk pages are not for discussing the merit of an article's subject, only for discussing article content. It would be good if we could not clutter up this talk page with opinions about Copwatch tactics, and just stick to citeable, encyclopedic facts. Murderbike 14:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Er, ok. Your own conduct as an editor has not been entirely beyond reproach or without bias, and I would not have thought this discussion would be seen as counterproductive or inappropriate, but I'm not here to argue needlessly or violate standards of behavior. I will just keep quiet except when absolutely necessary.Factchecker atyourservice 17:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copwatch.com

"and, in any case, the site has become nothing more than a forum to expound an anti-law enforcement proclivity where no law enforcement officer can be anything but bad, as evidenced by a recent post from a "moderator" on the site."

PLEASE NOTE: Such commentary is blatant original research. All ANALYSIS must be previously published by a reliable source.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Categories: Start-Class Law enforcement articles