Talk:New South Wales Police Force strip search scandal

WikiProject assessments

I have provisionally assessed this article as C-class quality because it has multiple issues tags that require clean-up and still needs checking against B class assessment questions. However, the length and detail within this article suggest it could easily be of a higher quality once these issues are addressed. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 06:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

OpticalBloom241 (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Conflict of interest editing

@OpticalBloom241: The entirety of your Wikipedia editing to date seems to have been related to either this article and creating other related articles. While there's nothing wrong with this per se, it can be an indication of some kind of connection to the subject matter that goes beyond a mere casual one. Are you connected to any of the organizations mentioned within this article? If you're somehow connected to or have been involved in any of the incidents or organizations mentioned in the article, then you going to want to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Righting great wrongs to be understand what the Wikipedia community expects from such editors. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, there. I'm not sure if you were referring to anything specific. The bulk of information on this topic has generally been sourced either directly or indirectly from either the Sniff Off campaign or Redfern Legal Centre. The Sniff Off campaign is an initiative that was launched in 2011 by the NSW Greens, a political party here in New South Wales. A Facebook page was launched by Sniff Off in 2014 which provides updates on drug detection dog sightings and more general information about policing in New South Wales. A majority of the images and videos used in this article and the others associated with this topic were sourced from that page. Various pieces of information used in the article, including statistical data, have also been sourced from NSW Police by Greens MP David Shoebridge, who serves as a public spokesperson for the campaign. The page also liases with various media outlets.

Redfern Legal Centre is a community legal centre which provides legal assistance and advocacy across a number of fields, including tenancy, workers rights and police powers. Since 2018, Samantha Lee, their police powers solicitor, has been involved in public advocacy surrounding the use of strip searches by NSW Police. A report commissioned by Redfern Legal Centre in 2019 was published by the University of New South Wales and the organisation is currently involved in an ongoing class action process with a commercial law firm. This is discussed in greater detail within the article. The organisation has also provided information to mainstream media outlets.

To answer your question, I'm not affiliated with any of the organisations mentioned in the article and I don't have any particular ties to the subject. I'm just some guy to be honest. If it seems a bit amateurish that's because it is. This is my first time writing on Wikipedia. No professional writing experience or legal background.- OpticalBloom241 (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Facebook citations

Facebook is not really a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes per WP:RS/P#Facebook, particularly in cases where it's individual Facebook user accounts being cited; so, most of these probably need to go. Official government organization accounts might be OK as a WP:PRIMARY source, but it would be much better to find WP:SECONDARY coverage of such posts in reliable sources and cite those instead. Same goes for citations to the Sniff Off Facebook page. If the organization's posts are discussed in secondary reliable sources, then perhaps it would be better to cite those sources instead. Otherwise, it's going to be really hard to treat them as anything other than WP:UGC content that is not suitable for Wikipedia's purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

A lot of the mainstream reporting on this issue has directly or indirectly been as a result of the work of the Sniff Off campaign. Several of the first mainstream media articles discussing the use of strip searches by NSW Police were published shortly after the creation of the campaign's Facebook page in 2014. Comments and statistics provided by the organisation's spokesperson David Shoebridge also featured heavily in the first article on the subject published by The Sydney Morning Herald in 2014, which is generally considered to be most reputable commercial media outlet in New South Wales (see: https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/police-in-doghouse-over-strip-searches-20141201-11xpzh.html). Several of the items mentioned in the article (Hidden festival incident, central station incident, venue ban policy) involved situations where content was shared on the Sniff Off Facebook page before being disseminated by other media outlets. It's biased undoubtedly but the Sniff Off Facebook page serves as the most comprehensive source of firsthand information on the subject.

You've also addressed the use of Facebook citations more broadly. Generally speaking, the majority of incidents involving strip searches conducted by NSW Police have taken place at music festivals and other events geared towards a more youth oriented crowd. The information sourced from Facebook and other social media outlets in the article has been limited to firsthand accounts involving individuals speaking about their own experiences. This is content that has in some cases served as the basis for more mainstream reporting and serves to supplement the more established sources provided in the article. You've alluded to social media posts being published by secondary sources adding credibility to the content, though I'd argue that in many cases media outlets will publish this content without conducting any due diligence, more so now than ever. - OpticalBloom241 (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

First-hand accounts posted on social media are WP:PRIMARY sources in the best case scenario and can only be used in certain types of ways; moreover, they're pretty much are never OK with respect to content which might be associated with a living person as explained here. They're also not what Wikipedia article content is intended to reflect because Wikipedia isn't intended to be a newspaper and it's not Wikipedia's role to try and set the record straight when reliable sources fail to do so. Most user-generated content is not reliable for Wikipedia's purposes because there's no sort of formal editorial control over what's posted. While it may be true that secondary coverage of these incidents may not be as diligent as it could possibly be, there does tend to be more oversight than you might find on an organization's Facebook page or an individual's social media account. A secondary source isn't automatically reliable for Wikipedia's purposes simply because it's secondary, but generally major media sources with established reputations for editorial control are considered OK for the most part. There's probably nothing wrong with content about Sniff Off being in the article, but citing Sniff Off in support of such content is not really what a good idea from Wikipedia's perspective. If reliable sources are reporting on Sniff Off and it's involvement in this matter, then perhaps that can be cited in support of such content. If there are things, however, that Sniff Off has done that's not being covered by reliable sources, then such content probably shouldn't be in the article regardless of whether it's true. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Use of Social Media Content

I understand that there have been some issues raised regarding the use of social media sources in this article. I understand that while these sources are generally considered to be unreliable, I believe that their use within the article falls within WP:ABOUTSELF guidelines. Per the guidelines, social media content used in the article has been restricted to instances involving individuals speaking about their own experiences and does not include any self-serving or exceptional claims, nor claims about third parties or events not directly related to the source. The article is not based primarily on these sources. Any claims put forward on social media have largely been consistent with, and in many cases served as the basis of (Central Station Incident, Hidden Festival Incident, Venue Ban Policy) allegations and accounts published by more mainstream sources. A discussion about the use of social media content within the article was opened here — Preceding unsigned comment added by OpticalBloom241 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

This is an article on the NSW Police Force strip search scandal. If someone is randomly undressing without anyone observing them, that has nothing to do with this article. In other words, I don't see how it's possible for a relevant social media account to not involve claims about third parties. By definition any claims must relate not only to the person but also include the police otherwise it's offtopic here. The media may report on claims made on social media, hopefully after some independent investigation and we sometimes may use such sources. That is how things are supposed to work. Nil Einne (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I've fixed a few easy pickings in this edit. WP:ABOUTSELF might say something about reliability when the claims are "Some random person on social media claimed X and Y...", but it does not say that there is due weight (imagine a police apologist who starts adding to the article things like "However, the post got 183 haha reacts and Joe Bloggs on Facebook made a counterargument that got 4 likes").

Nil Einne puts it exactly correctly that it's the media's job to report on claims by members of the public, and we can then quote media reports (sometimes). However, it's not our job to start doing investigative journalism, and much less our job to cover the minutiae of a Facebook group. Nor to start making evaluative statements like "NSW Police will typically release a statement detailing the total number of 'personal searches' conducted by officers, however the figure will not distinguish between the number of strip searches performed as opposed to general searches", which contain original interpretation not made in the reference itself (just an NSW Police statement). — Bilorv (talk) 01:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I believe you wrongly deleted many links there. Some are official statements from organisations like NSWPOL, others are Facebook posts by reputable news organisations.Kylesenior (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Merger discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Requesting to merge articles: New South Wales Police Force strip search scandal (Law Enforcement Conduct Commission investigations) and New South Wales Police Force strip search scandal (Freedom of Information releases) into New South Wales Police Force strip search scandal; dated: 02/22. One scandal does not merit three articles, but apparently a simple redirect is no longer an option. Discuss here. Sumanuil 00:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I did not object to the redirect. I objected to the fact you blanked two pages and made zero effort to move the information from those articles over to the main article.Kylesenior (talk) 01:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe I should have, but there's been plenty of time for others to do so. A redirect does not erase previous versions, after all. Also, determining someone's motive over the internet can be difficult. Sumanuil 02:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

If there has been plenty of time, why did you not attempt to do so?Kylesenior (talk) 03:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, I should have. I probably will end up doing so if this merge goes through. But it probably would have been reverted, though probably not by you. Some people seem to be determined to keep the three-article status quo. Sumanuil 03:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Pinging those who have recently been involved in the article. Feel free to ping anyone I missed. @Bilorv, Marchjuly, OpticalBloom241, Robertsky, Njd-de, and Nick-D:Kylesenior (talk) 03:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• Merge FIA releases page and Commission investigations page. The main article is long as it is, and has potential to be summarised furhter. Some details on FIA page may already be included throughout the main article, and the rest can be included similarly throughout the article. For the Commission investigations page, much of the content is supported by primary sources and written like a long news report. Summarise and merge into main article.

On the same note, what about Issues relating to the use of drug detection dogs in New South Wales. Are the issues relating to the drug detection dogs primarily relating to to the scandal here? – robertsky (talk) 06:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The whole thing is a mess of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS editing, and I'd suggest sending all the articles to AFD. Nick-D (talk) 07:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

As I've been pinged: I believe this topic is notable, whether under this or another title. I can't speak to the other articles or the merge proposal. — Bilorv (talk) 12:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the FOI releases article should be merged here. The concept of there being FOI releases as part of this scandal is not hugely notable, so it's not a good content split. And most of the content there would support or even duplicate the content here. I'm not against a merge with the LECC investigations article, it's more that it would be better considered later, after both articles have had some of their excessive detail removed. Basically, don't bite off more than can be chewed. --Xurizuri (talk) 05:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of Table

Njd-de I wanted to ask about the removal of the "Number of Strip Searches conducted by NSW Police" table. It's this edit here. My understanding was that the reason cited was synthesis but I wasn't sure if there was an MOS issue also. While the content in the table combined data from different sources, this was done for aesthetic purposes. There was no new conclusion drawn about the data itself. I believe this was in compliance with WP:SYNTH guidelines. Sorry, I know it was a while ago. OpticalBloom241 (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi OpticalBloom241. Tables can be used to compare data over a timespan. Data should be from the same source, using the same methodology though. It appeared to me that you had combined multiple different sources, using different methodologies which even lead to a situation where they contradicted each other. Simple table representation shouldn't need a more than 450 words explanation in notes where the numbers are coming from and what they mean. Wikipedia's No original research-policy does allow for basic arithmetic calculations. It specifically mentions the difficulty with statistics though. – NJD-DE (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The only available data comes from NSW Police and some of it is inconsistent and contradictory. Certain datasets reference calendar year periods whereas others reference financial year periods which adds to the confusion. There's no uniform source for this information either. I did my best to present the data accurately hence the notes outlining the problems and where the information was sourced from. It's not ideal but there's just no other way to do it. OpticalBloom241 (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

There's the option of not including this table at all. I don't see the necessity for including a table based on multiple different, inconsistent and contradicting sources. – NJD-DE (talk) 10:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Drug Dog Field Day 2022.jpg
• Hidden Music Festival 2019 Police.jpg

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Merger

Njd-de Marchjuly I was thinking it might be a good idea to merge the Issues Relating article into this one. Just wanted to get your thoughts on it. Thank you OpticalBloom241 (talk) 00:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)