Talk:Copaganda

Wiki Education assignment: True Crime and Misinformation

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 2 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DesSantiago (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Sr10721, Gmp76, ARO1209.

— Assignment last updated by ARO1209 (talk) 00:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Point of View

This is an unbelievably biased article. makes no mention of "Copaganda" being a concept held by those opposed to law enforcement presence, instead basically treating it as universal objective fact. That's the bare minimum of what this should do--not even mentioning where this term/idea even comes from and how prevalent it is Adam8410 (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

It's also inaccurate in the description of the shows. Dragnet and Adam-12 were not a half-hour of people doing the Rodney King beating. Half of the episodes of Dragnet are so not in touch with 60s youth culture that they're seen as kitsch if anything. OJ Simpson shows up in a brief cameo in one episode which deals with minority outreach to the LAPD. There's also an episode where they stop a Neo-Nazi from bombing a school about to be racially integrated. You can tell the people who wrote this article are ignorant and most likely very young, too young to remember when people weren't hyper-partisan. Stoverfan (talk) 03:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Meaningless Junk

Not every buzzword you see on Twitter needs a Wikipedia article. Stoverfan (talk) 03:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Copaganda is a topic as old as time itself. Yes, it's gone by many different names, and technically there should be a more academic name for the subject, but I've been reading about this since the 1980s. Viriditas (talk) 22:23, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

"Officer-involved shooting" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Officer-involved shooting has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 23 § Officer-involved shooting until a consensus is reached. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Why this article isn't necessarily bad but should have rewriting considered

I personally believe that the concept at hand here is a real thing, and I think police brutality is a real issue, so know I am NOT against whatever opinion the writer of this article has (assuming it reflects the writing decisions.) However, this article as the card at the top might say, this article has written bias and is written like a persuasive essay. Wikipedia is of course, meant to be unbiased, and I feel like some changes would really help this article. I don't want to be like everyone else in this discussion page and say its automatically bad, so I'll list some things that are good in this article.

• The sources seem to be reliable (haven't checked all of them out).
• When the article is written more formally, it feels more in-line with Wikipedia.
• The notable events and media listed are in fact, good examples according to sources.

With that out of the way, other than the bias mentioned this article has some flaws. The article does not follow Wikipedia's usual formality at times. For example, "[...]were endorsed and supported by the Los Angeles Police Department and were very pro-police[...]" could be rephrased to say, "[...]were endorsed and supported by the Los Angeles Police Department and held a positive view towards law enforcement and authority[...]".

Also, I know I sound like I'm repeating myself a little here, but putting some responses of police departments to criticism of Copaganda would go a long way to not only improve the article generally, but add more sources, reliability, article popularity, and even strengthen anti-copaganda views readers of this article may have.

Anyways, that's all, have a great morning/evening/night/whatever, and reconsider improving this article. HAZPUNK (talk) 01:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)HAZPUNK HAZPUNK (talk) 01:04, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

This sources might be helpful in establishing a neutral point of view.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-boys-who-cried-copaganda Hardy1729 (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is of course, meant to be unbiased" This is not among the goals of the project. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The biases in the sources themselves are not forbidden: "Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone." Dimadick (talk) 03:47, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, this is more accurate to eat i’m getting at. I’ll get to reading that page before editing. HAZPUNK (talk) 12:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

that was a typo; autocorrect made me say “eat” but some reason sorry HAZPUNK (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2025 (UTC)