Talk:Police
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Police was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: November 20, 2007 |
 |
Police has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 |
Police is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs. |
 |
Police 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. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale. | |
- Earlier articles (roughly up to end of 2006) have been Archived in Archive 1
[edit] Please put the marxist stuff in here somewhere
weird it's not in there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.40.203 (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Merge proposal / Lists to Categories
Not of this article but of related articles, in particular Federal police and National Police.
With the go ahead of the Law enforcement wikiproject a purpose discussion page has been opened for the discussion of a number of merge and redirect proposals related to this article. I would appreciate any thoughts you might have, please click on the purpose discussion page link and give them there. I would see this article becoming the main article for a new/revised category of police agencies. Please also see the rewritten Law enforcement agency, still a work in progress, which should be the "header" article for all law enforcement agencies. Note that Law enforcement which redirects to here should I think become a disambiguation page. Please, all comments to the purpose wikiproject discussion page. Thanks in advance. Pee Tern (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Use of term "United Kingdon
This article contains use of the term United Kingdom for dates before the United Kingdom existed. Is this acceptable? Would it be better to say England/Scotland and Great Britain, or in the future United Kingdom? I ask only. User:Shulgi 18 December 2006, 17:45 (UTC)
[edit] Roman Police
There is almost nothing about the police of ancient Rome. Why? Jack 17 January 2007, 15:25 (UTC)
- Pobably because no one wrote it. There needs to be a "History of policing" artice besides this one, because it's a huge and important topic. I'm curious why you think the ancient Roman police need more emphasis. Bobanny 18:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Pictures
There are a lot of Polish pictures all together in the same area... any particular reason for that? I didn't see any special mention of Polish policemen in that section. Maybe it's not important, but I just want to make sure.
- Yeah, I thought that was odd, too. Could we get some more variety in the pictures, here? Endovior 05:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
This is a picture of iranian female officers http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v101/He219/7843781.jpg and an iranian police car http://bp1.blogger.com/_69A5hotwPJc/RnBEiDHjsoI/AAAAAAAAAGg/CANPBfrf4vo/s1600-h/Mercedes+Benz+E240+Highway+Patrol.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.137.244.106 (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Policing is not identical to law enforcment
I was directed to the police page from a "law enforcement" link. This is understandable since it is common these days to think of police in terms of the law enforcement aspect of their function, however the historical origins of police are in order maintenance, and the scope of their mission continues to be much wider than simply enforcing law. I think it might be better to have a law enforcement disambiguation page that includes not just police but a longer list of executive government agencies —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.41.69.33 (talk) 03:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
- True, sort of. It's even arguable that 'order maintenance' is, or ever was, the main function of the police. It's a little academic though, no? Law enforcement agencies and police agencies are interchangeable in common usage; would a dedicated 'Law enforcement' article necessarily include different information than this article? Stop by Wikipedia:WikiProject Law Enforcement if you're interested in hashing this stuff out - there's a lot of work that needs to be done on related articles. Bobanny 06:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Outside north America, it is called policing. Law-enforcement is a north American term. Mesoso 00:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, someone should tell that to the BBC and the MET, both of which seem to use "law enforcement" interchangeably with police. They became synonymous in the early 1930s in the US around the time of the Wickersham Commission, but these things tend to spread globally pretty quickly. Before that, "law enforcement" was just as likely to refer to the courts. Bobanny 17:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
If one considers Policing and Law Enforcement are different, give each of them a definition then.
The issue of policing versus law enforcement does need further explaining. See also, for example, the issues behind the suggested cleanup for Federal police and National police.152.91.9.190 (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Just off the cuff, there is a difference. Leaving aside enforcement of the civil law, which is a matter inter partes, there are other bodies for enforcing various aspects of criminal law. Consumer protection agencies spring to mind, as do animal protection bodies, various licensing authorities, and I'm sure the list can be extended. Customs & Excise/Revenue enforcement and INS are other obvious examples. I'll think about it and see if I can work out a sensible proposal for dealing with this. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly. Also, "police" are often also responsible for missing persons, crowd control, traffic control, public safety and security campaigns, (general) search and resue (as distinct from specialist search and rescue, which is usually the responsibility of the "fire brigade"), etc. Police have intrusive powers to help them in this regard, but use of force is only one such intrusive power. This article seems to focus on the law enforcement side of police rather than balance their social and public order responsibilities. Also I would suggest that even in the USA "law enforcement officer" usually means "police officer", but "law enforcement agency" usually means a much broader range of entities. Perhaps the approach should be to define the types of law enforcement and the types of public and social order maintenance and then describe how these responsibilities are undertaken in various agencies throughout the world. There is possibly also a blurred line between the responsibilities of "police" and "fire and rescue", in regard to the "rescue" bit.152.91.9.190 (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Is my suggested rewrite of Law enforcement agency in Talk:Law enforcement agency a start?152.91.9.190 (talk) 06:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
A rewrite of Law enforcement agency has been done whihc might help here. Pee Tern (talk) 05:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fixing up this article
I rewrote the introduction and plan to do some significant renovation of this article. If anyone's interested in helping out, please jump in, or give me feedback. Some things that need changing, IMO:
- the country break-down needs to go. It seems to serve as a place holder for general content, but is ultimately just a list that duplicates List of law enforcement agencies somewhat. At the same time, making this article relevant globally is probably the biggest challenge.
- the "See also" section seems to be a random sample of Category:Law enforcement and should mostly done away with. Maybe all the "Policing in ..." articles could go here, but mostly the existing entries should be wikified in the article's main text.
- A separate History of Policing article needs to be made, and that section should be reworked summary-style.
- The sections need to be rethought; not necessarily ditching the ones already here, but to try and make this article sufficiently comprehensive.
- There are quite a few good photos, but they need to be redistributed better throughout.
- References, references, references.
It might take me a while to plod through this list, but I'm making it a priority because it's the core article for WikiProject:Law enforcement and generally a pretty important topic. I'll try and respect what's already been included, but anticipate a significant amount of re-writing. Please let me know if there's any disagreement with these or other changes I make. Thanks, Bobanny 01:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] police with guns
Is it true that the police of Britain (i'm not sure about Northern Ireland) are the only police forces in the world to not carry guns on standard patrols? could this be mentioned in the article? Fwed66 14:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
There are a few police forces that don't carry guns. Most police services in the UK are routinely unarmed except for the police in Northern Ireland. New Zealand Police, the Irish Garda and Iceland's police are also unarmed.MickBarnes 23:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Request: Spain
There is no mention about law enforcement in Spain. There are indeed articles about the Guardia Civil and Policía Nacional on Wikipedia, but I think someone with more knowledge should write it. Anyone tempted? --Aatox 20:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Is this picture appropriate?
Here is a picture I took to satasfy a request for pictures on the Carson City, Nevada article: Would this picture also be appropriate for this article or would this be more of a distraction from the purpose of this article?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nevada_Law_Enforcment_Monument.jpg
Davemeistermoab 23:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- It could go here. I'd suggest Policing in the United States might be a better home for it though, since this article is already fairly cluttered and that one could use another image. But it's you're call. bobanny 23:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Out of Context Sentence Removed - Equipment (CIRT?)
"In the Department of corrections they do not have SWAT (special weapons and tactics) teams, they have CIRT teams. CIRT stands for Critical Incident Response Team. CIRT responds to to most violent crimes in the most dangerous of prisons."
I've snipped this out, it did'nt seem to make much sense where it was... if it is to be included somewhere, someone more familiar with the subject matter would best weigh in. BlakJakNZ 10:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Municipal, metropolitan and city police / guards
Municipal police redirects here. Metropolitan police seems to refer to normal police organized in relation to cities. City guard stub I just created is about a separate phenomena, existing in Poland and quite possibly in other countries - security officials working for cities but with lower powers then normal police officers. City police redirects to City of London Police and certainly should be a disambig. Copyedit of relevant articles by editor with knowledge in that field is needed.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 19:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] What Happend to the artical?
- uhhh....i cant see the rest of the articial...it just went away...all that shows up are the 1st 2 paragraphs. When i go into editing mode i can see the rest of it written in, but i can not find it when i go to read to read the artical outside of editing mode. Anyone know whats going on? --T Van Wormer 23:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- okay...so it is back now. im not sure what happened...w/e --T Van Wormer 23:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] How do you de-blank a page?
This page has been blanked, and I have no idea how to undo it. Some help? The Last Melon 23:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- It's been reverted. In the future, click the 'history' tab up top, click the version before the vandalized (or blanked) version. Click 'edit this page' and save it. Alternatively, in the history tab, select the vandalized version and the one before it, click "compare the selected versions" button, and then click "undo" and then save. bobanny 02:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- So it's basically a rollback. The Last Melon 06:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] first sentence
How about, "Police or Law Enforcement are agents or agencies empowered to affect public and social order through various means of coercion, including force." To me, this first sentence is better because it defines police (instead of just beginning to tell what they do) and it groups "legal coercion" and "other legal means" (which sounds redundant) into an "umbrella phrase". What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.105.8.48 (talk)
- How about "legally empowered"? I think the standard accepted definition, from Max Weber, is that police use legitimate force, so 'legal' or 'legitimate' should be there somewhere. I agree that "are agents..." is better because it's a definition, and I'd be happy to see "law enforcement" removed (they also help find missing children, but we don't include that in the intro). And it should be "effect" (to bring about) rather than "affect" (to cause a change in something). So with my modifications, it would read something like:
"Police are agents or agencies legally empowered to use various means of coercion, including force, to effect public and social order." Anyone else? bobanny 02:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- I went ahead and changed it, closer to your original suggestion. bobanny 20:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Great article!
I love this article. It's grammatically perfect (I desperately wanted to find a spelling error!) and admirable in its depth. Well done! (Hangemhigh 23:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC))
- Glad you like it. I used to not like it much, but it's evolved nicely since then through the efforts of quite a few contributors. It's also vandalized several times a day, but has been suprisingly stable because a lot of folks have it watchlisted and revert vandalism right away. I'd still like to see it get to featured status someday, but as it is, this is a good example of collaboration on Wikipedia. bobanny 06:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Academic journals list
Someone keeps adding a list of scholarly journals to the article and I keep removing them. They are inappropriate for a number of reasons, which are listed at WP:EL. My main reasons for reverting are: These are not accessible journals because they are not free. Some have "sample" articles, but getting at even those crumbs requires registering. Academic journals can be accessed through most public library or university library systems, and are great sources, but they should be used for adding reliably sourced content to the article, not for a mini-link farm section in the article. In any case, external links should be in the "external links" section, not a separately-tiered "academic" section.
The same editor also keeps adding the same wikilinks to the "see also" section, including a region-specific youth program and a defunct branch of the US Dept. of Justice. The first seems to serve as promotional material for the program, and the second is esoteric trivia. Neither add anything to the article as they are both very particular and this is a very general and global subject. Other entries are similarly arbitrary and are already linked in the main body of the text (see the guideline here). Unless there's a consensus reached here to override these conventions, I will continue to revert those changes. This article has come along way from when it was more lists than anything else and I don't want to see it revert to that.bobanny 06:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Police conduct and accountability
I think this section is far too general. Sure police officers in some countries can be corrupt but take the UK for example, the wages there are relatively high and recruitment is one of the strictest jobs in terms of vetting and training. Just think this needs looked at.
[edit] Good Article Review
I've taken a first shot at this but it is a long article and I don't think it's worth looking at all in one go, there's just too much to take in. So that its editors ca take it forward, I've added my initial comments and will place the GAR on hold while they're addressed. Then I have no objection to coming back to it. So far, fails (but only just) on criteria 1 (Well-written) and 2 (Factually Accurate and Verifiable). Passes (provisionally) on 3 (Broad), 4 (Neutral), 5 (Stable) and 6 (Images). Specific comments so far are:
[edit] Lead
- "police departments of a state" is self-defining, could be "specific departments" or just "departments". And perhaps "bodies" or "organisations" might be better than "departments".
- private companies can also have police departments, more commonly in North America than the UK. bobanny 01:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- "legal or territorial area" - not quite sure what "legal area" means here, I know of no separate police that deal with distinct legal areas. If you mean functions such as, e.g. British Transport Police (Rail), M.O.D. Police (military establishments) then this needs reflecting.
- applies to federal political systems where there is more than one level of government. In Ontario, Canada, for example, the RCMP have only a legal area of responsibility (federal laws), but no territorial area. I can't think of a clearer way to phrase this. bobanny 01:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- "jurisdictional"? I realise this is a difficult idea to convey but to me "legal area " implies a specific topic such as, say, liquor licensing. Up to you. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 02:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think jurisdictional in that case would mean the same as "area" as it's used in the article. It could be geographical, such as within a city limits or on a transit system, or legal, such as the Drug Enforcement Agency's jurisdiction of federal drug laws. bobanny 04:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- "jurisdictional"? I realise this is a difficult idea to convey but to me "legal area " implies a specific topic such as, say, liquor licensing. Up to you. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 02:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- FBI as "law enforcement agency" - no need for italics
- fixed.bobanny 01:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- "this however has only ever..." - not clear what "this" is, it's a bit of a dangling reference. Perhaps "the United States' pre-eminent agency for law enforcement, however this...." makes "this" closer to its referent.
- fixed, I think. bobanny 01:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- "Policing has included an array of activities in different contexts, but the predominant ones are concerned with order maintenance and the provision of services" -> "Policing consists of many activities; predominant, however, are the maintenance of order and the provision of services" reads more fluently.
- perhaps it could be more elegant, but I think the "different contexts" part is important. Policing Boston in 1907 was pretty different than it is in 2007; policing Amsterdam is undoubtedly different from policing Pyongyang.
- "are (or were)" - is the name still used? If they are so referred still as a historical term, it should be "are".
- Russia still calls it militsiya, but other former Eastern Bloc places have dropped that name.
[edit] History
1.1
- "other duties....was" -> "other duties....were"
- fixed. bobanny 01:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Break between Greek & Roman to make separation a bit more clear
- fixed. bobanny 01:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- The Roman Empire had a reasonably ...... of the empire" - how is "reasonably" justified? Also, repeat of "empire" jars slightly; "... until its end"?
- fixed. bobanny 01:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- "Anglo-Saxon" - should this be Wikilinked?
- done. bobanny 01:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
1.2
- "paid by the government" -> "funded by the government"? This would include provision of equipment, training etc. and not just salaries.
- Not much of that other stuff back in the day. The significance is that these police were paid out of the public coffers and not working for private interests as were, for example, Englands thief-takers. bobanny 01:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- "the 17th century and early 18th century" - would "the 17th and early 18th centuries" flow more easily?
- done. bobanny 01:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delamare - edition referenced is 1722
- fixed, I think. bobanny 01:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- "then the largest city of Europe and considered the most dangerous European city" - second instance of "European city" is redundant. And considered by whom?
- fixed. bobanny 01:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- "defined police as the task.." -> "defined policing as the task..."
- fixed. bobanny 01:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- "This office was held by Gabriel Nicolas de la Reynie" -> "first held by", otherwise when?
- fixed. bobanny 01:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- "The city of Paris was divided into 16 districts policed by the 44 commissaires de police". "16" -> "sixteen". No need to repeat "44". Definition has been established, no need for "de police".
- fixed.bobanny 01:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- "each assigned to a particular district and assisted in their districts by clerks and a growing bureaucracy" -> "assisted there by"; clerks are presumably part of the bureaucracy and could be conflated into the phrase.
- fixed. bobanny 01:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- "lieutenants general" -> "lieutenants-general"?
- hmm...not sure, but there's no hyphen earlier in the paragraph where it's linked to an article.bobanny 01:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- "cities or towns" or -> and
- done. bobanny 01:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- "As conceptualized by the Polizeiwissenschaft" -> does not need additional Wikilink in this section. Paragraph as a whole leaps into sociological issues which I doubt need spelling out in such great detail; perhaps it's enough just to state the different balance of emphasis between law enforcement and public protection.
- It could probably be worded a little better, but it does spell out specific police functions that most people wouldn't associate with the police post-Adam Smith.bobanny 04:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- "detaining" - is this the right word? Is it part of Weber's definition, in which case it needs to be within the quotes, otherwise, it needs correcting. "retaining"?
- fixed.bobanny 04:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- "Despite its differences" - which are not defined. In fact, why mention the Marxian definition at all? What does it add to the understanding? If it stays, "repressive apparatus" does not need to be quoted.
- fixed, I think.bobanny 04:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Modern Police
- The "troubles of the French Revolution" - either belittles a major historical upheaval or has connotations with Northern Ireland 1969 onwards. Suggest omit or replace with stronger word.
- done.bobanny 04:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- "Paris and all French cities" - redundant?
- fixed.bobanny 04:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- "which the Paris Prefecture of Police's website claims" - then it's referenced.
- but is possibly a contestable claim.bobanny 04:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- "The act established" -> "The Act established"
- fixed.bobanny 04:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- "and inspectors general" -> "and inspectors-general"
- don't think so. See:Inspector General.bobanny 04:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- "in an 1836 act and the" -> "in an 1836 Act and the"
- don't think so: "the act" would be a proper noun, not "an act."
- "watchmen had been hired to guard the streets at night since 1663, the first paid law enforcement body in the country," move sub clause closer to its subject, i.e.
"watchmen, the first paid law enforcement body in the country, had been hired to guard the streets at night since 1663"
- fixed, I think. bobanny 04:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- "This group of Police are often referred to as ´Bobbies´" - singular subject (group) takes single verb (is often...) although this jars too. Recast to avoid.
- fixed.bobanny 04:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- "British Empire (Commonwealth) Bobbies" - Wikilink & "Empire (now Commonwealth)".
- done. bobanny 04:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- "(Normally British Overseas Territories or ex-colonies, Bermuda, Gibraltar or St Helena for example)" - included in Commonwealth.
- fixed.bobanny 04:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Many of the Commonwealth Countries developed Police Forces using similar models such as Australia and New Zealand. -> Many of the Commonwealth Countries, such as Australia and New Zealand, developed Police Forces using similar models.
- Removed. Commonwealth countries already mentioned.bobanny 04:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- "founded in Canada" - there's only one Toronto, isn't there? Move Canada to replace "North America" at the beginning, the rest them follow.
- Reworded. Kept that it was one of the first in North America. bobanny 04:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Personnel & Organisation
- "They typically make up roughly 15% - 25% of a police service's personnel." - this is unsourced.
- "contrast to" -> "with"
- changed "by contrast to" to "in contrast to" bobanny 04:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- "The London Metropolitan police's SO19" - now been renamed to CO19, and this link needs piping.
- fixed.bobanny 04:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Restrictions upon the power of the police
- Needs reference to (PACE) after wikilink because acronym of later used in the text.
- "Incidents such as the 1965...has" -> "have"
- fixed.bobanny 04:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- "precipitous" - is this right or is it "perceived"? It's unreferenced anyway.
- right word (abrupt, steep rise). Yeah, a lot of this needs references. bobanny 04:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- "has made questions surrounding the role, administration and scope of authority of police specifically and the criminal justice system as a whole increasingly complicated" - could this be recast to sound less clumsy?
- shortened sentence by keeping it specific to the police. hope that helps.bobanny 04:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- "Some believe that police forces" - source? This whole para looks like OR.
- I removed, but moved the reference to racial profiling to beginning of that section. bobanny 04:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Recruitment
- Whole para is unsourced, or at best unreferenced, and looks polemical.
- It wouldn't be hard to find sources confirming that poorly paid police are more likely to be corrupt, but I agree as it was, the section was POV and so removed it. bobanny 04:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This is my first GA review so please forgive me if I've made any glaring errors, I have had the GA criteria in front of me! Meanwhile, I'll come back when the above comments have been considered. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 21:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, Rodhullandemu. I've begun addressing some of your points, but don't have a lot of time right now, so if anyone else wants to jump in, feel free. bobanny 01:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Police power article
I've added a see also to a section with a link to the general article about the power of the police Police_power. That article is not in good shape - perhaps some of you with an interest can take a look at that article and see if it can be cleaned up so the tags can be removed from the backlog? AvruchTalk 19:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Failed Good Article Review
I've removed the nomination of this article, having failed it on the following grounds:
- Some of the language still needs to be clarified
- The article is not stable as several edits, not all minor, have been made in the last week, and
- I have not had a chance to comment on some other issues because the language one was the most pressing; however, it occurs to me that all the images are modern, and some of historical significance would improve the article.
Feel free to get a second opinion; it was so close. I will recuse myself from the next GA review because I have spent a long time reviewing it, and a fresh pair of eyes may be no bad thing. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 21:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Archive
Articles prior to roughly beginning of 2007 have now been archived. Link is at top of this page. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 23:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Images
In my opinion, this article has too images. I've removed one but suggest several more could go. --kingboyk (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- I would think that consensus should prevail here. The image you removed was the only one featuring UK police officers, although I have to agree it didn't add that much to the article. I'll go out and about tomorrow & see if I can find something more typical (not too difficult where I live). But the article could benefit from a few more historical images. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Truth be told, I felt there was some vanity involved in that picture. It wasn't a random snapshot of a bobby in action, it was posed and the officers are named on the image page.
- What do you mean "consensus should prevail"? Has this already been discussed or have you a hotline to consensus? :) --kingboyk (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, I don't have a hotline, not even to George W Bush. But if I'm going to make changes to an article, unless it's to revert vandalism or remove unsourced material, I generally mention it on the talk page first so as to avoid accusations of breaching WP:OWN. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of moving the picture of the German police officer to the top of the page. I feel that it's a better initial image, as it will reflect the public at large's image of the police better than riot police (previously the first two images) - a very specific and relatively unusual part of police work. I've also been BOLD and removed a couple of images, as well as alternated some left/right as per the MOS. I definitely agree that there are too many images on this page - perhaps one or two relevant ones per section (e.g police cars in the vehicle section, SWAT teams in the armament section etc.). --Scott Wilson (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Good move. I am still looking for free images to illustrate the historical section but all my books a re in storage at present. Ho hum. Certainly locating the images close to the relevant sections would be better for the article. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] economic criticism
Has anyone considered adding a criticism of socialized police forces from an economic standpoint?
- -Thorsmitersaw - Feb 21, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorsmitersaw (talk • contribs) 07:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Just added Hong Kong section - appropriateness?
Should the just added Police#Hong Kong section not be here but in the Hong Kong Police article? Peet Ern (talk) 03:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Most popular song
The Police's "Every Breath You Take" was at number one on the charts longer than any other recorded song in history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorby12 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
