Talk:Police/Archive 2

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

Public perception/image by country section needed?

In the countries that I have lived in public perception and image of various uniformed, plain-clothes and federal LEOs have varied fairly widely, and varied greatly dependent on ethnic group. My immediate reflex was to check wikipedia about this issue when it came up in a news story, but there's nothing. Shouldn't there be, seeing as how this is a fairly big deal, at least in the US? See http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/3/6/9/1/pages136919/p136919-1.php and http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/russians-explain-their-distrust-of-police/ Pär Larsson (talk) 03:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

"Marine Police" - no longer exists

The article includes: "This force is still in operation today as part of the Metropolitan Police and is the oldest police force in the world."

This is incorrect, because the "Marine Police" no longer exists, having been disbanded when it was subsumed into the Metropolitan Police, becoming the "Thames Division" at that time. As it has ceased to exist as a police force, it cannot be "the oldest in the world", and indeed there is a legal undertaking in existence, given by the Metropolitan Police to the Advertising Standards Authority to avoid criminal prosecution for an untrue claim that the Met was "the oldest police force in the world", for the Met never again to repeat such a claim.

See: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4265475.ece 217.169.14.81 (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting point. Logically we should also edit the article about the Marine Police Force. I would steer clear of words like "disbanded", but I would also not say "the Marine Police Force continues to operate at the same Wapping High Street address and is now the Marine Policing Unit of the Metropolitan Police Service." as that article does. Why not say "the Marine Police Force is now Marine Policing Unit of the Metropolitan Police, which operates at the same Wapping High Street address."?
Yaris678 (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

police training resource, in Colombia

Decades of warfare against drug cartels and armed guerillas have provided Colombia with a valuable asset. Countries across Latin America are sending their troops and police to learn the techniques of its elite Jungla unit. in Volume 5, issue 47 October 2011 Monocle magazine.[1] 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:BRD on change to lead.

I have boldy reverted this change to the article. I believe it puts too heavy an emphasis on the use of physical force by a police service (one facet of a complex notion) and deprives the article of an otherwise fairly well built lead. I invite people to discuss this here. S.G.(GH) ping! 12:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your revert. Wikipedia is not the place to suggest that police = force. Johnuniq (talk) 03:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

it's not a suggestion it is common knowledge the world over but go ahead wikipedians keep defying reality94.168.208.207 (talk) 12:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Defining police

I am seeing several components that are required:

  • a system of rules and guidelines, ie. law
  • an organization
  • enforcing obedience to those rules and guidelines, ie. enforcement
  • using force, coercion, and/or inducement, ie. police power

These are described various ways throughout the centuries and nations of Earth.

"Order" is what "law" describes, hence the differentiation between them seems superfluous. "Property" and "disorder" are again described by these rules and guidelines called laws, and hence are also superfluous. The "police power" can be described as "compelling obedience to those laws through legal sanctions, physical means, or other forms of coercion and inducements", ie. use of force and enforcing, and is hence superfluous.

"within a defined legal or territorial area of responsibility" seems to signal there is a jurisdictional component. Could prison guards be described as prison police? "Police forces are often defined as organizations separate from any military forces" seems true: they usually are not considered part of the military/defense/peace ministry but usually an interior/security/love ministry; but sometimes they are, for instance military police are still described as "police". Hence this seems superfluous to a possible jurisdictional component:

  • within a defined legal or territorial area of responsibility, ie. a juridiction

This article seems like it has a European (yes America is mostly European, we killed most the natives off) slant. Could not many organizations be considered police if for instance we recognized their sovereignty or other right to force police organizations? California law for instance does not seem to define what police are, just "Any person who comes within the provisions of this chapter" and recognizes people like "any police officer, employed in that capacity and appointed by the chief of police or chief". See California Penal Code §830-832.17. (Again this is a common law jurisdiction so it is based of the unwritten English feudal laws.) I think such European-isms should be spared from the intro, and the basic English words for what they describe used.

Therefore I think we are left with:

"An organization that enforces obedience to a system of rules and guidelines using force, coercion, and/or inducement"

or

"An organization that enforces obedience to a system of rules and guidelines using force, coercion, and/or inducement within a defined legal or territorial area of responsibility"

It sounds crass but that's what they are. Everyone seems to have this urge to call it by anything but its true name. "Obedience" could be replaced by words like "compliance" to water it down a little a give a more neutral tone, but it seems to me "compliance" is usually what non-police forces, like parking enforcement officers, enforce without use of force. But the most basic term should be used, which again may be "compliance" even though most western police enforce "obedience". Int21h (talk) 07:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you wholeheartedly but wikipedia will not allow such truth and logic in an article. Everything must be pro government, pro police, pro slavery and may not contain any truth or knowledge other than that that comes from people who support there bias view94.168.208.207 (talk) 12:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Service pistols versus side arms

I have a copy-editing question that in theory should be posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law Enforcement. I am posting it here simply because many more editors watch this page.

The article on service pistol is written from the perspective of the military, but articles such as Detroit Police Department, Halifax Regional Police, New York State Police, Pennsylvania State Police, Portland Police Bureau, Royal Malaysia Police, Swedish Police Service, and Western Australia Police use the term "service pistol" for the handgun used by and/or issued to the police. By contrast, the article on side arm explicitly notes that term's applicability to both the military and the police.

So the question is whether there is a legitimate military vs. police distinction between service pistol and side arm, or as I suspect, "service pistol" is better thought as a more specific term for a type of side arm.

Note that more specialized services, such as the United States Secret Service, the Federal Air Marshal Service and the New York City Sheriff's Office (which is distinct from the New York City Police Department) also refer to service pistols.

Further evidence of this interpretation is in articles on weapons such as the Walther PP, SIG Sauer P220, Beretta Px4 Storm, and P9RC, which refer to service pistols in a broader way.

If my assumption is right, perhaps an editor active in writing WikiProject Law Enforcement articles could have a go at improving the article on service pistol. Thanks. 72.244.206.19 (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The SIG Sauer P226 is certainly the standard issue UK sidearm that I have seen. S.G.(GH) ping! 10:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 January 2012

Under subheading "Protection of individuals", 1855 (not 1856) is the correct year of the U.S. Supreme Court's South v. Maryland ruling, the first of its kind which ruled law enforcers are not required by the Constitution to protect individuals from each other, and therefore, cannot be sued under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. This was reaffirmed approx. 150 years later in Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005).


216.120.186.11 (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done. I added a cite to [2] but was unsure on a couple of fields so if someone reading this could finish it off that would be great--Jac16888 Talk 17:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 February 2012

Reference to the "British Independent Police Complaints Commission" is inaccurate - please change to "Independent Police Complaints Commission for England and Wales". The IPCC has responsibility only for complaints against the police in England and Wales, and has recently - in order to clarify this - amended its own Web site front page to clarify that it does not deal with complaints about officers of the eight Scottish police forces.

The same error has also crept into the Wikipedia for Schools item at http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/p/Police.htm, which also wrongly refers to the UK forming the Serious Organised Crime Agency. That is a common misconception, the SOCA has no formal role in Scotland (which has its own civil and criminal legal systems, quite separate and different from that in England and Wales), where a similar function is undertaken by the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency. That needs to be changed to "the UK Government formed the Serious Organised Crime Agency for England and Wales". 217.169.14.81 (talk) 04:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 06:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Clean-up badly needed

This article is awfully messed as every each teenager coming cross apparently tried to enter few sentences on his local cops. In every section. I wonder what an enemy of Wikipedia invented the custom of having the "In ..." section within the main article. We now have 206 God freaking countries so mere mention of each effectively makes an article unreadable. Oh, and not to forget tech-obsessed individuals who would crap this article with pics and discussions of their favorite pistols and "police cruisers". This all should be stopped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.133.79.71 (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Policing

Policing was founded in the 1200 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrm1233 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI : Enforcing redirect

The Enforcing redirect was taking here. I've changed it , reverting a double redirect fixing, to Enforcement (which is not a redirect any more) because I can not understand why enforcement should be related to Police only. --79.1.156.46 (talk) 06:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Shut it down.

There is no hope of a quality article here because of the underlying conflict inherent in the subject. This is an article about an extremely unpopular segment of society: persons who snitch on their fellow man for money. That segment will forever be defending against the truth here, just as in the real world.

This is a fundamental flaw with the wikipedia concept -- an awful lot of people simply can't handle various truths, or more tactfully, agree on what the truth is.

Give up, or require some testing for contributors, or adopt measures to prevent special-interest "protectors of the article" from policing this horrid thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.78.211.148 (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Umm... While that's an interesting opinion, your proposed solutions are disagreeable and hopeless. While such proposals may or may not have been rejected before, I, here and now, reject them again. Int21h (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
It's not even an interesting opinion... S.G.(GH) ping! 10:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Intro

Looking through the archives, I note some comments about the lead paragraph: (1) The sentence "In some societies, in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, these developed within the context of maintaining the class system and the protection of private property" isn't very clear and reads more like a polemic. Which societies? How did they develop in this context? In what sense did (or do) police maintain the class system? In fact, the citation it links to doesn't even say this, it makes the more interesting and relevant point about police having a much more varied role historically. (2) "protect property" in the first sentence is redundant. They do not do this unless in the context of enforcing laws or carrying out instructions from duly appointed authorities e.g. courts, local authorities. (3) "the legitimized use of force" is phrased in such a way as to generate controversy. "Authorized" is both clearer and more accurate. In case anyone thinks this focuses too much on police use of force (a valid criticism) I am not saying it is the only tool they use, but it is the tool which distinguishes them from other emergency services (4) regardless of the unusual historical position of the UK police, police are without question a government agency. (5) police are an emergency service - surely this should be in the introduction?.

Therefore, I propose the following introduction:

""Police" refers to a government agency tasked with maintaining public safety through the prevention and detection of crime. They are generally an emergency service, and have a greater range of legal powers and duties than do ordinary citizens to use force in the prevention of crime and apprehension of criminals.

As well as law enforcement, police historically undertake a variety of roles related to their broader mission of public safety such as the licensing of firearms, receiving lost property and searching for missing persons.

Alternative names for police force include constabulary, gendarmerie, police department, police service, crime prevention, protective services, law enforcement agency, civil guard or civic guard. Members may be referred to as police officers, troopers, sheriffs, constables, rangers, peace officers or civic/civil guards. Police of the Soviet-era Eastern Europe were (or are, in some cases, like in the Russian Federation) called the militsiya. The Irish police are called the Garda Síochána ("guardians of the peace"); a police officer is called a garda. As police are often in conflict with individuals, slang terms are numerous. Many slang terms for police officers are decades or centuries old with lost etymology.

Modern police forces have a different legal role to that of the military, which is tasked with protecting citizens and the state from external enemies, although areas of overlap include where military units are tasked with policing the civilian population (gendarmerie or constabularies), military units tasked with providing policing for military bodies (provosts or simply "military police"), extraordinary situations where the military are called to provide policing due to civilian police being overstretched (Military Aid to the Civil Authorities) and the engagement of police forces in peacekeeping efforts overseas."

What do people think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.158.16.33 (talk) 04:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Should Not Be So HARD To Edit This

Someone enters new info here, all it takes is a few words in a search engine to find a reference linkor official article.

Like, when going through the regional academy of LPSO in Lafourche Parish, we were taught that the Rodney King incident-involved officers were acquitted due to "vicarious liability." So, if someone enters such info in an article an editor/ approver --- those people that seem to make it a full-time job being on Wiki --- can enter the words "Rodney King vicarious LAPD" or some similar string. Wa-la! He gets a dozen reference articles and links to justify such references.

Law enforcement just has so much written on it. It should not be as hard as Wiki makes it for us to gather info and make edits here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tengu16 (talk • contribs) 06:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

And I've reverted your edit for the following reasons:
  • a) you can't use other Wikipedia articles as references,
  • b) putting content like "As the ancient saying goes, "Who watches the watch-men?" [3]" is not encyclopaedic, it violates WP:POV.
  • c) major statements are made with no citation, including "been suggested by some people to be evidence that U.S. police are dangerously lacking in appropriate controls." and also "Had the officers properly used the PR-24 in accordance with the provided certification program, Monadnock (now Armor Holding) would have provided a legal defense team to assist in their defense; since they did not, however, no such assistance was provided to any of the officers or the agency for which they worked. Therefore, law enforcement agency training standards --- even among larger organizations such as the LAPD --- may not be as strict or exacting as the private standards of companies offering services/ products to them." none of which is cited. Also "like in the Belarus) called the militsiya" was changed to "like in the Russian Federation) called the militsiya." but it is not clear why.
  • d) you also don't appear to know how to wikilink, [4] should be linked as Use of force continuum, etc.
If your edits are being reverted often, it is likely that issues such as these exist with your edits rather than with the rest of Wikipedia. A topic like Policing is going to be extremely contentious, and is also very broad. Specific incidents based on localised events cannot be used to draw inference across the entire spectrum of the subject. Perhaps if you localised your edits to articles on the Rodney King incident, where such detailed knowledge could be put to good use. And find another citation for your comment on the baton. Regards, S.G.(GH) ping! 10:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


I HATE these guys. If someone does not know how to fricking "wikilink", then JUST DO IT!!! It takes more time and energy to criticise people than to make things right. So, these guys are NOT helping when they do crap like this. Just make the little 10-second correction, and let the article stand.
Plus, if you look up famous vicarious liability rulings, Rodney King's is one of the most recent ones. It's been in newspapers and all that. Instead of deleting stuff, send a guy a message and tell him to give a citation. You have thousands of articles with those "citation needed" marks on them anyway. So, why keep good relevant info from being presented?
They actually use this case in academies, man! Maybe I'll look on the FLETC site, cuz I was taught this going through corrections training. So, I completely agree that this kind of thing should not be so hard to present, since it is so easily verified.
I dont have the patience for this crap. I hate idiots and cyber-bullies with every excuse in the world for stupid c0k-blocking.

Poekoelan (talk)Poekoelan —Preceding undated comment added 17:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

"vicarious liability" seems to mean the opposite of what you are claiming here. Rmhermen (talk) 02:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


Oh, NO!!
I know exactly what I'm saying. "Vicarious liability" means that the fault ("liability") falls on another ("vicarious"). It refers to a contingent circumstance wherein an employee is excused from legal fault because he/ she was actually trained by the entity under which they served (corporate, government or institution) to act in the manner in which she/ he did. Thereby, if legal fault must be assigned, it rests with the organization with which they were affiliated, if it can be proven that training, policy/ procedure or common practice of that org is actually flawed.--- That's my words, bub. No one else's. That should give you an idea of how well I know this topic. STFU!


The federal governemtn can actually assume control of a local/ state police agency over this, if enough evidence substantiates it. It is the reason that there is a federal Civil Rights Division under the US Department of Justice, because that is the area of law most likely to justify such assumption of control. Check that.

Poekoelan (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Poekoelan

I looked at several webpages that included "Rodney King" and "vicarious liability". None mentioned that as part of the officer's defense - rather it is the principle on which the sergeant was charged with the beating despite not holding or using a nightstick. He was liable because he was the responsible authority which fits the description in our Wikipedia article on the subject. Rmhermen (talk) 17:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Using terms like STFU and cock-blocking and so forth probably don't encourage people to strongly support your argument. You will notice that the lack of correctly formatting contributions was bottom of my list, yet your comments don't address the issue regarding the lack of citations. The existence of citation needed tags on other articles indicates that those statements need citing or removing, not that it is okay to have uncited material.

Furthermore, "Rodney King's is one of the most recent ones" still seems like more of an argument for including your contributions on the article on Rodney King, rather than an article on police. Remember that this article is a broad coverage of aspects of police from the Roman Empire (and before) to the present day. To enter so much content on this one subject on such a broad overview smacks, to me, of USA-centric recentism. Law enforcement in the United States may be a more appropriate article to go into such detail on. S.G.(GH) ping! 18:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)



What?
"USA-centric recentism?" I'll have to look that up. Sounds like somebody is just making up words to seem smarter than they really are. Someone who does notn like the US.


Now, I do agree that the comments made by Pokelan are somewhat inflammatory. This is a talk page, though, so I'm hoping it's okay for people to express things with some emotion. After all, people do get heated if they are trying to share things they know and are interested (emotionally vested) in.


Pokel did not start the Rodney King reference. It was already there. Check the "View History" tab to verify, and you can view older versions of the article change for change, even comparing them side by side.


It looks like Poek, who says he's a prison guard in some of his posts, has simply added a link. A very good link, BTW, leading to a whole book on law in practice. I do hope to be able to use that one myself someday, since I left all of my old law and law enforcement references in CA with my ex-wife. No longer in that field, I'm not about to buy a whole new library just to write some Wikipedia sections or comments here and there.


Unfortunately, I've come to agree with some of Peok's comments. I've not seen any real "help" or "collaboration" from the censors here. (What is the offical name for their position?) I see them repeatedly block what people try to put out for really petty reasons. In doing so, they prevent people with knowledge on those topics from expanding the knowledge base provided here. Is there a nice politically-correct short phrase for that?


Like the whole "formatting" thing. I've written instruction manuals for my old agency, on such things as Crisis Management, Emergency Response Team functions and Special Tactics; I used federal references for most of those written works, mainly the FLETC pages on related topics. So, I have trouble understanding how Wikipedia can be more exacting than either the federal government or the profession in which I worked.


To me, Wikipedia has simply stopped being about the sharing of real information, and more about the strict enforcement of petty party rules and strictures. However, one of the guiding principles of Wikipedia is to "Ignore All Rules" [5] [6]. It's the fifth of the "Five Pillars of Wikipedia" [7]


Wikipedia is not supposed to be a bureaucracy; that's the third rule of governance here, as found in "What Wikipedia is Not" [8]. That's exactly what we see when they create so many obstacles to improvement and expression, however. If not, those people that devote their time to being obstacles would spend less time simply correcting mistakes, while still allowing as much accurate info to be presented as possible.


We see thousands of "citation needed" Wiki-ments all over the place. That means, quite clearly, that an article need not be perfect from the start. In fact, Wikipedia has a grading scale for articles. In that grading scale, there are several that allow articles to be posted without references or citations, such as the "Start" class. Why then do we see every censor's page completely filled with complaints about people's articles for worthwhile topics shot down? (One guy tried to create an article on the Hindu concept of Anatman, as opposed to the Buddhist expression by the same name, and he was blocked. I'm no scholar, but as a former practicing Nichiren Buddhist, I know the difference between the two and would like to see such article allowed [or at least a separate section for that idea posted in the related Buddhist and Hindu articles]). ---- The only answer to such question, as to why these EASILY VERIFIED topics are repeatedly shot down, can only be that Wikipedia has become a rules-focused bureacracy, rather than an information-sharing site.


Another Wikipedia concept we constantly se broken by the guys that repeatedly block worthwhile articles is this: "Wikipedia is not censored." That's the last of the policies for content, again found in the article on "What Wikipedia is Not" [9]. Therefore, the actions I have repeatedly seen with at least 4 different "editors" is completely contradictory to the very rules and spoken purpose of Wikipedia.


"Wikipedia is the product of thousands of editors' contributions, each one bringing something different to the table, whether it be: researching skills, technical expertise, writing prowess or tidbits of information, but most importantly a willingness to help. Even the best articles should not be considered complete, as each new editor can offer new insights on how to enhance the content in it anytime." That's what the "Wikipedia:Editing policy" article says [10].


Oh! That "Wikipedia:Editing policy" article also states something else I have been saying over and over on various different talk pages about blocked article content: Perfection is NOT required.


To quote: "Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required."


Anyway, good link. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tengu16 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

"Live well. Die well. Pass on virtue to all you meet." 16:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)Tengu16 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tengu16 (talk • contribs)

Just with regards to "USA-centric recentism?" I'll have to look that up" I would suggest Wikipedia:Recentism and centralisation to start, and Eurocentrism as a counterpoint. I also enjoyed "somebody is just making up words to seem smarter than they really are" because, of course, that is what smart people do isn't it. And that retort is also one that a smart person would make. So thanks on both counts. Regards, S.G.(GH) ping! 18:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


All I know that I gave a link to a whole law book that was deleted. They have a reference to Rodney King here, and the riots that erupted as result of the officer acquittals, but won't allow anyone to explain the justification for the acquittals/ How is that being complete or thorough? Why would they delete a completely impartial link to a PDF law practice reference?
There's no sense to this, no logic. Yet, these guys swear up and down that they are not censors, or don't black-ball certain members, like I've seen calimed on several talk pages. I give up. It just ain't worth the aggravation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poekoelan (talk • contribs) 14:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I know we are going on and on about this, but to clarify my point: I am not saying that the contributions were not true, my primary concern is that though the Rodney King incident is an important watershed moment in the history of modern US law enforcement, the in-depth content that was afforded it in this article unduly weighted this article because this article is about all forms of policing, from Ancient Rome to the modern day, in every country in the world. In the context of policing over 2,500 years it doesn't warrant the inclusion of about 25% of the articles' text. Law enforcement in the United States is probably the best place for such in-depth knowledge, and perhaps as a section in something like use of force or similar. And in terms of verification the article was full of references to other Wikipedia articles, which don't count as reliable sources. Wikipedi doesn't consider itself to be a reliable source.
But yes, I agree. We are going round in circles. One of the curses of discussing over the internet. No doubt we could make ourselves perfectly clear in person, and would probably be agreeing by now. Regards, S.G.(GH) ping!

"Empowered" should read "authorized by a state (and point to article State_(polity)"

Agreed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tengu16 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Militsya

«Police of the Soviet-era Eastern Europe were (or are, in some cases, like in the Russian Federation) called the militsiya.» — to someone who can edit this article: please remove the reference to "Russian Federation", their police units changed its name to "politsija". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.95.36.5 (talk) 13:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Moved semi-protect message

I moved the semi-protection message to above the other uses message. I felt it looked better and felt more natural there. Zell Faze (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 July 2012

Under subheading "Protection of individuals" 'since 1856' should say

something like "consistently ruled" when referring to the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings that there is no constitutional duty of law enforcement to protect individuals from other individuals' behavior, but rather to protect society as a whole. The first of these rulings was "South v. Maryland" (1855) and, more recently, this century's Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005).


216.120.186.11 (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Done S.G.(GH) ping! 19:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

I for one think that the line "Thai Traffic Police in Surin, Thailand" under the first picture is a tad redundant, and the redlink isn't helping either.

Having it say "Traffic Police in Surin, Thailand" would be a much better description.124.180.181.17 (talk) 11:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Dubious claim of "oldest police force in the world" repeated here inaccurately and without evidence

Famously, the Metropolitan Police had to give a written undertaking to the Advertising Standards Authority never to repeat its claim of being "the oldest police force in the world" to avoid formal enforcement action - because it wasn't true, not by a long chalk.

The claim here, in respect of the Marine Police, is at best dubious, and possibly untrue, given the establishment of a uniformed body of constables, wearing uniforms with "Police" badges, in the City of Glasgow in 1789. The fact that this police force failed due to financial difficulties, and had to wait until 1800 until an Act of Parliament provided a statutory basis for its funding, does not stop it being the oldest police force in the UK. After all, the Marine Police - in that form - ceased to exist when it was subsumed into the Metropolitan Police, so if defunct police forces still count, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander!

And of course a whole host of Scottish borough police forces, starting with the City of Glasgow Police in 1800, pre-dated the Met...! 217.169.14.81 (talk) 03:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

For example, the catalan Police, the Mossos d'Esquadra, was founded in 1719 --213.248.110.84 (talk) 21:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 May 2013

169.139.19.135 (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. No request was made. --ElHef (Meep?) 18:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Predictive policing

I added this to the see also section, yet an article still needs to be made:

KVDP (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

article "Police" subheading Protection of Individuals

Protection of individuals needs 1856 changed to 1855 (reference to U.S. Supreme Court's South v. Maryland as well as reference to 2005's Castle Rock v. Gonzales. Examplar (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.nleomf.org/facts/enforcement/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 01:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2014

add the actual history of police officer

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --Mdann52talk to me! 14:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

"The average police patrol vehicle is an specially modified four door sedan." The average of a van and a motorcycle is not a car. Perhaps the word median was sought for — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.139.20.219 (talk) 23:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Security forces

I see that security forces has been redirected to this page. The two are quite separate things in many jurisdictions. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Film box? Suggestion

If there's nothing more relevant than the word "Police" in the "Films of Chang Cheh" infobox, I suggest it be removed from the article. Pegship (talk) 17:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2015

Request that a change be made in second paragraph from "Many police forces suffer from police corruption to a greater or lesser degree" to "Many police forces suffered from police corruption to a greater degree" to eliminate bias and conform to tense of rest of paragraph.

Luger19197 (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

 Not done you would need to show that all corruption had been eradicated to use the past tense. - Arjayay (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Police

Cyberbot II has detected links on Police which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://web.archive.org/web/20131001082822/http://www.robertankony.com/impact-perceived/
    Triggered by \brobertankony\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Police. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Problematic section: "Use of force"

One problem is that this section is only about the US.

This paragraph refers to the "trend" of police violence in the US:

"The fact that this trend has occurred contemporaneously with the rise of the US civil rights movement, the "War on Drugs", and a precipitous rise in violent crime from the 1960s to the 1990s has made questions surrounding the role, administration and scope of police authority increasingly complicated.[citation needed]"

It's a poor paragraph. First, a "trend" means a phenomenon where some variable is either increasing or decreasing over time. The text preceding the paragraph does not say anything about whether police violence in the US is an increasing or decreasing trend.

Second, the paragraph ignores the fact that since the early 1990s, ... crime has declined significantly in the United States, and current crime rates are approximately the same as those of the 1960s.

Third, what does the assertion that this putative "trend" "has made questions surrounding the role, administration and scope of police authority increasingly complicated" even mean? --Teemu Leisti (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 13 external links on Police. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2016

After footnote [69] (Hills, 2009), I would like to add the following:

"In some cases, the transportability of policing models could also be related to the promotion of national policing models (Arcudi and Smith, 2013).[70]"

[70] Giovanni Arcudi & Michael E. Smith (2013) The European Gendarmerie Force: a solution in search of problems?, European Security, 22:1, 1-20, DOI: 10.1080/09662839.2012.747511

PolObs46 (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Police. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2016

Add wikilink to Police Foundations (Local) page to "See Also" section of article PoliceScienceGuy (talk) 16:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

PoliceScienceGuy (talk) 16:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Done Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 21:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Law enforcement?

From the lead:

New Zealand police is scared of a moari name Antonio because he has killed 3 kids and 6 police. He is a very dangerous man and should not be approached. Policing has included an array of activities in different situations, but the predominant ones are concerned with the preservation of order. In some societies, in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, these developed within the context of maintaining the class system and the protection of private property.

"Law enforcement" is an inexact term because police only deal with crime, traffic offences, and other public order issues. They do not deal with civil law/private law. This passage also implies that the preservation of order and the protection of private property are not a matter of "law enforcement". This, of course, is not true.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Police. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.



Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 19 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Apere130.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 26 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Davon0828.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

United Sates Oldest Law Enforcement Agency i.e. Police

The Virginia State Capitol Police is the nations oldest Law Enforcement Agency I.e. Police. As stated in documents and the wiki page for the Virginia State Capitol Police, they were formed under the "Public Guard" in 1618 and were charged with protecting the Governor and colony's from Indian attacks as well as protection of public property. The "Public Guard" remained in place until the Civil War, at that time all militia and paramilitary organizations were banned in the south and the "Public Guard" was changed to the "Capitol Police".

What does this mean, well the Virginia State Capitol Police will be celebrating its 400th Anniversary in 2018. VA.LAWOFFICER (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Police. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Police. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Criminology Course Assignment

I am designing my Senior Seminar in Criminology course this Fall to include a group assignment in which students take one section of an article on policing and work to improve it. Any suggestions for target articles, sub-sections, etc would be appreciated.

We will be working through the WikiEdu.org program, and I believe you can see a link to the course on my User page. DoctorKarpiak (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Sorry for the delayed reply. We could do with: more information on precursors outside of the UK (France was a big pioneer), more information on issues with 'Conduct, accountability and public confidence', and expansion of the 'Strategies' section (which would require subheadings). Perhaps more could be added to 'Development of theory' though this would require subheadings too. The 'International Policing' needs to be shorter and clearer to read for a non-expert reader. We need more sources in the 'Personnel and organization' or 'Use of force'. Just a few ideas. Anywikiuser (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I think it would be good to have a better definition of what police do.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the ideas. After some discussion in class, we've decided to write a section on "Police culture," a concept which has been central to much of Police Studies. The question now is whether it should be its own entry or whether it should be a section within this larger article. DoctorKarpiak (talk) 04:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
For now, start with a section of this one. If it becomes too big for the article it can be split off into a separate article, leaving a summary section here. Also remember to keep the new content well-sourced and be careful about generalizing (e.g. I'm sure there's big differences between police culture in the UK, France, the US and Latin America). Anywikiuser (talk) 13:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2019

The rank of the officer from Hamburg, Germany is "Police Chief Master (upgraded pay)" and not (Confirmed Police Sergeant Major). HigherX (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Zman9600 (talk) 18:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

"Cop(police)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Cop(police). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. gnu57 21:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Critical errors

‘Empowered by a (state)...’ should be replaced with (government). *The word ‘state’ is not a broad enough term when used in the ‘body of or power’ context, eg ‘empowered by’.

‘Some of’ should come before ‘Their powers include’ when referring to powers of which there are objectively more but not listed. Grammarenforcement (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

"Another (organisation), the Constabulary..." should be replaced with (organization). The entirety of the article is consistent with American spelling format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.122.66 (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

"The first centrally (organised) police force was created by the government... should be replaced with (organized). The entirety of the article is consistent with American spelling format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.122.66 (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

POV

"legitimized by the state via the monopoly of violence" is a HUGELY judgemental phrase.

Corrected to the original monopoly on violence. Rmhermen (talk) 01:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Ineffective Watchman?

Crime historian Clive Emsley, author of The Great British Bobby: "Traditionally, the assumption has been that the Metropolitan Police was established because of an increase in disorder and crime. This is, however, extremely difficult to prove." It appears the article repeats rumor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.3.44.47 (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Malaysian police

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Malaysia_Police Founded in 1807 Holeejr (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

World's oldest police force

It says in this article that the Metropolitan Police, formed in 1829, are the world's first modern and professional police force, this isn't really true though - there are many older police forces, most notably of which might be the City of Glasgow Police (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Glasgow_Police), formed in 1800 and I'd say if you look at their organisation pretty modern and professional. Keep in mind the Met were previously warned by the UK's Advertising Standards Authority to stop calling themselves the world's oldest police force because they're not. InspectorRage (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

It's funny in that the claim appears to be supported by sources, even though Paris had a police force founded in 1667. I suppose it depends on how you define a "modern" police force. The founding of the Met was pivotal, but I can't really think of a set of criteria that would make it the "first" of any type of police force. Anywikiuser (talk) 12:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Ensuring health?

Since when police "ensures health" it hurts more people than anyone. Policemen are expert in hurting people (often deadly)....anyway who cares. All to mean that ensuring health it's better to rephrase as "make law respected", rather than detailing what comes from those laws.

--Joujyuze (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

More than most of the world

The articles says that US have few policemen, since many years the trend has been toward growing and growing police ranks. And well US isn't so far from most of the world anymore. Also 35 % less than most of the world.......what is the "world average police per 100 000 capita". The article won't tell.

--Joujyuze (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Definition of the term/difference between modern police and pre-modern police/city guard isn't established

The article doesn't establish the difference between pre-modern and modern police, even though the article presumes that there is one (Is there one?). Furthermore, this article doesn't have a straight definition of police whatsoever. The terms city guard, guard, royal guard, police, viles, organised vigilantes, it's all put in the "history" section without explaining what is what. In the Rome section, there is implied that the Praetorian Guard wasn't real police. If so, why? And in what ways the Egyptian and Chinese guards were real police? --JakobvS (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, I think it's basically because praetorian were mainly military. So I guess the writer likened them to gendarmes. --Joujyuze (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC) Both units were also seen as elite. In France gendarmes are considered "more elite", they also have harder recruitement, and different juridictions and tend to be issued heavier weaponry than regular policemen.--Joujyuze (talk) 15:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Ancient History Order and Semi Protected

The order of civilizations in the Ancient section is arbitrary. We should go by chronological order, which would be: Egypt, Babylon, China (not China, Babylon, Egypt as it is now).

I would do it myself, but the article is semi protected, which (as far as I see it) seems to be based on one vandalism edit by a sock puppet vandal, who has now been blocked. I suggest a removal of the semi protection. --217.140.78.250 (talk) 04:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Medieval Arabia in history section

Should the Shurta (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=H-k9oc9xsuAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22Josef+W.+Meri%22&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=Shurta&f=false) which was responsible for "suppression of crime" and judicial functions, their chief being expected to educate himself on criminology (Book of Brigands) count?

What about the Muhtasib, a civilian responsible for enforcing laws relating to "markets and public morals" and dhimmis? (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=H-k9oc9xsuAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22Josef+W.+Meri%22&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=Muhtasib&f=false) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AverroesII (talk • contribs) 13:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Footnote 77 is a Dead Link

Footnote 77 in the section regarding Police in the United States, " "Slave Patrols: An Early Form of American Policing". National Law Enforcement Museum. 10 July 2019. Retrieved 9 June 2020. ", goes to a 404 Page. It seems that the National law Enforcement Museum has removed this page from their website. As I do not have the ability to change the page due to my status as a new editor, I am requesting that footnote be removed, possibly replaced with the many resources on the subject, including NAACP's page on The Origins of Modern Policing. Traanarchist (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

  1. ^ Predictive policing
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Police/Archive_2&oldid=1144863137"