Talk:New South Wales Police Force
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
New South Wales Police Force is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject New South Wales. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian crime. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
 |
New South Wales Police Force is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject. Please Join, Create, and Assess. Remember, the project aims for no vandalism and no conflict, if an article needs attention regarding vandalism or breaches of wikiquette, please add it to the article watch list. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
Is there any citation for the line concerning police who did not want to pursue a career in detective work because of the Woods Royal Commission?
Deleted that statement. No citation, baseless opinion and this is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper (tabloid).
Contents |
[edit] Too long?
This article is really long. I'd edit myself but I don't know how to use wikipedia markup to make a columned box for the local area command abbreviations, for example.
[edit] Organisational Structure
Added a stub section on Organisational Structure.Journeyman 06:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rewrite
Here's my reasons for adding the rewrite tag:
- Too long
- Not NPOV
- Too many lists
- Needs to be split
- Contains many spelling errors
- Not compliant with style guidelines.
The information is still useful though, so any rewrite would need to take that info into consideration.
ajdlinux 03:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- agree on need for a rewrite. I tried tackling organisational and sectioning problems and tried to balance out the section lengths and restore a sane order to the sections, but I haven't really touched the main text or the (considerable) NPOVing issues. clarkk 10:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- also recently an anonymous user 152.91.9.190 (talk · contribs) came along and added some useful information, but unfortunately really threw the whole structure out of whack, see: [1]. I tried at least restoring some of the original structure clarkk 10:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- it also looks like the rewrite tag was removed without discussion by 124.168.23.59 (talk · contribs) in this edit: [2]. clarkk 10:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- The resemblance between the history section and the Thin Blue Line is remarkable... ajdlinux 03:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- Edited "Confronting Bushranging" section by adding correct source (Melrose, A (1911)The trooper police of Australia. London.) Would I be correct in stating that this topic is getting to a point where we can rid the page of the comment of the article needing a complete rewrite? If so can we lose the header now?
[edit] Name
The NSW Police Force name was changed years ago to NSW Police, this needs to be changed throughout the article as well as many spelling errors! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.189.19.216 (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC).
- NSW Police was changed back to NSW Police Force late last year. -- Ladida 05:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Actually Ladida the name change was officially made on February 1st 2007. Former Police Minista Michael Costa frequently used the term but the official name still in Legislation was just 'NSW Police' which it had become in 2001. The 'Force' only came back in with a change again in legislation which took effect on the date I just mentioned.
Just to be pedantic of course...
[edit] Major Units
I don't see why the following are listed as being major units: Negotiation Unit Police Rescue & Bomb Disposal Unit State Protection Support Unit Tactical Operations Unit
All come under the one Command (State Protection Group), which itself would be the "Major UNit" and not the small individual unit itself...especially not the SPSU's.
Highway Patrol, Traffic Sercies and PORS are larger than the above units when singles out individually and can be seen as being more 'major'. YEPPOON 21:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Shootings
There've been a lot of incidents across the country in the past three months of shootings by police [citation needed] , including a suicide. It might be worth mentioning that the NSW Police utilise ammunition that is outlawed by the Hague Convention [citation needed] , interestingly the government chooses to make them employ things we would not extend our own enemies during war time on it's own citizens. Jachin 08:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- To clarify, the Hague Conventions of 1899, Declaration III, prohibits the use in warfare of bullets which easily expand or flatten in the body,[1] Jachin 08:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Plenty of other Western nations also use hollowpoint rounds in law enforcement, but not in warfare. That is by the definition of warfare as military actions on an international scale, right? Besides, hollowpoints are actually safer than full metal jacket rounds, because the latter have a tendency to pass through a target and into whatever happens to be behind him/her/it. Like a bystander; hence its use by law enforcement agencies.
Jachin you clearly have no idea what you're talking about and simply have an anti-Police and Government are 'evil' agenda. Law Enforcement agencies in Australia, and across the world, have used expansion rounds (aka 'hollw points') for as long as they have been around...decades and decades, for the simple fact that they are less likely to pass right through someone (or walls etc) and kill/injure an innocent bystander.
Hague Convention does not apply to Domestic law enforcement, only international warfare. It also outlaws a lot of other items still used by countries world wide regardless of whether or not they are signatories to the convention. It is also worthy of note that the Hague Conventions original phrasing and idea was aimed at preventing the practise of making lead rounds "dumdb dumb" back around the turn of the Century and clearly has little practical application to anything you could wish to drum up against LE use of expansion rounds.
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Blacktou.JPG
Image:Blacktou.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 02:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Uniforms
Any chance of including the rank images? Seems to me this is an important part of the uniform. --58.168.205.222 11:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Done :-) DirectEdge (talk) 07:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] huge gap in history
from around post 1870 to late 20th century. Michellecrisp (talk) 02:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
