Jump to content

Talk:New South Wales Police Force strip search scandal

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by OpticalBloom241 (talk | contribs) at 18:29, 25 August 2022 (→Seeking clarity: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Merger discussion

CLOSED
Agree to merging of all article(s) as per wp:Consensus. There does not seem to be disagreement regarding the mergers happening. Concerned editor(s) should feel free to merge at any time, but:
  • Please concisely summarize and move material from the source articles;
  • Please be judicious in moving the referenced content into the target article keeping it all encyclopedic (will it matter 10 years from now?);
  • Please avoid duplication.
Proceed with merging. Non-Administrative closure-- GenQuest "scribble" 13:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

{{Merge from | New South Wales Police Force strip search scandal (Law Enforcement Conduct Commission investigations) | discuss=Talk:New South Wales Police Force strip search scandal#Merger discussion | date=February 2022}}

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
The merge template should be removed by the person doing the merge, but at the time of the merging. The que for merges right now is running at about 15 months (last I checked), so patience is a virtue with merges. OpticalBloom241 should, however, re-install the Merge Request Banner in the meantime, so anyone can see the issue and act on it, if he doesn't want to get to it now. Regards, GenQuest "scribble" 13:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
marchjuly GenQuest My feeling was that there was too much content in the New South Wales Police Force strip search scandal (Law Enforcement Conduct Commission investigations) to merge it. I thought it might just be better to leave it as a standalone article. OpticalBloom241 (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, That is acting against the consensus here. Please add the template back. Thanks, GenQuest "scribble" 14:39, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GenQuest: I actually had re-added the "Merge" template before I posted above this discussion. I apologize for not mentioning that in my OP and any confusion not doing so might have caused. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Anyone can do it. Same with the merger. GenQuest "scribble" 05:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note; I point OpticalBloom241 to WP:MERGECLOSE (aka Step 4) which includes the removal of the merge templates when the discussion is closed, not when the merge is done (aka Step 5). I've added the being merged template. Klbrain (talk) 23:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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:

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

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)[reply]

I didn't really notice this until now; so, my apologies for not replying any sooner. You seem to have already redirected Issues relating to the use of drug detection dogs in New South Wales to this article; so, perhaps a merge is no longer necessary. A merge could be a good idea given the previous other merge discussions related to this article, but you might want to also run this by the users involved in those discussions to get their input. It does seem (as someone else mentioned previously) that multiple articles are probably not needed about what appears to be a single scandal. You should also understand that a WP:MERGE doesn't automatically mean copying-and-pasting all of the content from one article into another; so, the other content might need to be trimmed or summarized down quite a bit to remove any redundancies before being merged into this one. If you do incorporate content from other articles into this, you should also be aware that WP:CWW requires attribution be given in most cases in order to comply with Wikipedia's licensing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to Table

@Njd-de: I've made changes to the "Number of Strip Searches Conducted by New South Wales Police" table in the Statistical Data section of the article. As I said before the information is collected from three different sources but there's been no attempt to draw any new conclusion about the data, which I'd argue is in keeping with WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY. There's some basic arithmetic as well but I'd also argue that this falls within SYNTH is not numerical summarization guidelines. Would appreciate your input. Thank you OpticalBloom241 (talk) 09:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shared SBS video

@OpticalBloom241: Are you able to find the original source for this video? It would be much better to cite the original source than someone sharing it on Facebook. If the original source for the video cannot be found, then it might be possible to cite the original news report without a link to the video, but in that case it would be helpful to know when the report aired and other information about it since it might be able to be treated like a newspaper report which isn't available online per WP:CITEHOW#Newspaper articles. Citing the original source of the video is preferable to citing some third party Facebook account posting about the video. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marchjuly I can't locate the original video, hence why I re-added the link as I figured it was better than leaving the content uncited. I thought it might be acceptable to link the file with an added disclaimer that it was "Archived via Facebook" but I'll defer to you on how to proceed here. Upload date was 12 June 2018 but the video was originally aired on 10 June 2018. OpticalBloom241 (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the original SBS video can't be found on an SBS website, a link to it probably shouldn't be added since there are concerns related to WP:COPYLINK. The Facebook post appears to be a case of a video being embedded and not a link to a video being added, which again is probably not something Wikipedia should be using. There are also issues related to linking of the post related to things other than the video because generally social media posts aren't considered reliable sources except in certain cases as explained in WP:ABOUTSELF. The original comment made by the Facebook account holder and the subsequent comments made by others that followed would probably not be acceptable even if there video added to the post. When I queried some others about this, one person found this SBS story which appears to be related to the video repost. Perhaps that can be used as a citation instead of the video. Finally, when you re-added this link, you marked your edit as a WP:MINOR edit. Generally, things like adding/removing content (including citations) are not typically considered minor edits and shouldn't be marked as such. In particular, any edit which essentially reverts another edit made by someone else also is typically not considered a minor edit. This is not a huge deal, and perhaps you weren't aware of this. Editors pretty much never end up blocked or anything like that for mistakenly marking edits as minor, but it can sometimes come up when there are other issues being discussed. I'm assuming this is why you didn't leave an edit summary when you re-added the link. Not leaving an edit summary (like marking edits as minor) every now and then probably isn't such a big deal, but be aware there are users as well as bots who look for "unexplained edits" and will remove them as such if they find the edit even a bit questionable. So, it's best not to assume that the reasons an edit was made are obvious to others and leave an edit summary (especially when re-adding potentially contentious content previously removed by another) to help explain why. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Non free file perimssions

Marchjuly I'm aware that you've tagged a number of files on this page for F7 deletion relating to NFCC violations. I've uploaded a more detailed rationale on each file's talk page explaining why each item should be retained. I've done my best to keep the use of non free content to a minimum but broadly speaking I feel that those files are essential in the context of the article and not having them there diminishes the reader's ability to understand the topic. It's a complex topic and most people aren't going to be familiar with what's being discussed. Each file relates to a significant event and having them there draws attention to this fact while also providing the reader with a direct context for certain comments or incidents, which I feel is important given that some were controversial in nature. OpticalBloom241 (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did tag some of the files you uploaded for deletion earlier this year because because I didn't really think they satisfied Wikipedia's non-free content use policy for one reason or another. These files were subsequently reviewed by an administrator and then deleted by the same administrator for WP:F7. Generally, that only happens when the reviewing administrator feels that file's use clearly doesn't comply with relevant and that further discussion isn't going to change that. If you feel an error has been made, you can ask for clarification from the administrator who deleted the file.
There are also a number of other notifications related to orphaned non-free use and WP:F5 that were added by bots. These too were deleted by administrators after a review. You seem to have been re-uploading files (in some cases multiple times) after they've been deleted by an administrator and many of these have been subsequently been re-tagged or re-nominated by bots or other users (including some who are administrators) for reasons related to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. If any of these have yet to be deleted, you should be able to find out why the file has been tagged or nominated for deletion by looking at its page. You can also find out who tagged or nominated the file for deletion by looking at the file page's history. If after doing this you disagree with the assessment being made or the reasons given for deletion, you can explain why by posting something on the file's talk page.
When a file has been deleted by administrator, there are still ways to discuss that deletion or have it reveiwed. Typically, this process starts by seeking clarification about the reasons for deletion on the user talk page of the administrator who deleted the file. If the file has already been deleted, you can find out who deleted it and file by clicking on the file's red link looking at the deletion log at the top of the page or by checking Special:log. Re-uploading a previously deleted file is pretty much never good idea since it might be seen as an attempt to circumvent a decision by an administrator and can also be viewed as a form of disruptive editing. If you weren't aware of any of this, then that's OK; just don't re-upload deleted files in the future.
FWIW, I personally don't see any justification for using any of previously deleted files you re-uploaded and re-added to this article. and agree with those who renominated them for deletion. I don't think the situation regarding their non-free use has changed in any way, but you can clarify why you think their uses are policy compliant by posting something on their respective file talk pages. Most administrators check the talk page of a file tagged for deletion before deleting the file, and have the discretion to decline the deletion request or suggest further discussion when they feel it's warranted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 August 22 § File:Mick Fuller Daily Telegraph 2019.jpg

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 August 22 § File:Mick Fuller Daily Telegraph 2019.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 August 23 § File:Police Tent Splendour 2017 2.jpg

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 August 23 § File:Police Tent Splendour 2017 2.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 August 24 § File:Police Minister Strip Search Comments.ogv

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 August 24 § File:Police Minister Strip Search Comments.ogv. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 August 25 § File:Lessons Learned Unit Screensaver.png

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 August 25 § File:Lessons Learned Unit Screensaver.png. Marchjuly (talk) 03:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC) -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking clarity

@Nick-D: could you please explain why you've made this revision here. You've cited WP:OR as the reason for deleting the video and a mention of it in the text. The file was included in a section of the article discussing allegations that drug detection dogs used by NSW Police have falsely reacted to non drug related odours, including food odours. The file featured a video of a stunt filmed at the 2006 Big Day Out music festival wherein an ABC presenter had allegedly used raw meat to draw the attention of drug detection dogs at the event. I'm not sure how WP:OR applies here. Could you please elaborate on why you removed the content. Thank you OpticalBloom241 (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_South_Wales_Police_Force_strip_search_scandal&oldid=1106646744"