Jump to content

Talk:Certis Group/Archives/2021/April

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


Incidents section

are all these incidents in which an officer was killed/injured or killed/injured someone else notable enough for an encyclopedia? Surely there are dozens of these. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

In Singapore's context, any form of criminal violence involving uniformed personal is rare and typically noteworthy.--Huaiwei (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
While Singapore certainly has a low rate of violent crime, it is comparable to that of Tokyo, or Hong Kong. And some of the incidents listed are not even of crimes - there's an officer killed in a building collapse, for example. Tragic, no doubt, but how is that notable enough for an encyclopedia? Most of the incidnets listed have one mention, typically from a single Singapore news telecasts. See WP:NOT#NEWS. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
You do not need an incident to be a crime to be on front page news. The Hotel New World disaster is not just another building collapse. A recent television reenactment of the disaster featured that particular officer. I do not simply add individual cases by weighing their individual notability. They collectively tell a point, no different from List of British police officers killed in the line of duty.--Huaiwei (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
If an incident of crime is not even newsworthy enough to be front page news, how is it worthy of an encyclopedia, which is supposed to list things which have an impact that withstand the test of time? Listing items in order to make a point is a violation of our WP:NOR policy. If you want to make the point that Singapore has a low violent crime rate, just say so. If you want to create an article List of Certis CISCO officers killed in the line of duty - go ahead, and be prepared to defend such an article's notability on AfD. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
If your unusual interest in this article is only so because you believe I have an agenda on presenting Singapore as a location with a low violent crime rate, than I must say I am greatly amused and insulted at the same time. If you have an intention to question my purpose and professionalism in wikipedia, just say so. To put it quite plain and simple, this article list incidents notable enough to be reported in the media, and I have taken pains to ensure all (save for one) are fully referenced. These incidents, collectively, assist to illustrate some of the points mentioned in the article, for example, that some CISCO members do run foul of the law. Your presumption on non-notability is based on nothing but your disinterest in this topic, coupled by your believe that I have an editing agenda. If you continue to persist in this discussion driven by bad-faith, than I do not feel much neccesity to talk much further.--Huaiwei (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I have not assumed anything about your agenda, please extend me the same courtesy - the above post is an amazing compilaiton of bad faith assumptions. I question the notability of these incidents, according to wikipedia policy, and not all incidents which make the news are worthy of an encyclopedic mention. Wikipedia works by consensus, so I encourage you to continue this discussion.Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Then kindly explain the following quotation "If you want to make the point that Singapore has a low violent crime rate, just say so." May I know what you are trying to insinuate with that statement? All incidents listed were referenced, with each incident reported in the national papers. This is not a question of an article for each incident, but a select list of reported incidents, not too different from WP:Lists, albeit I see no reason to create a dedicated list just yet, alhough that day may come. One cannot just highlight one or two incidents and expect it to be balanced (corruption, suicide, and lapses in security etc are taboo to uniformed organisations, so care must be taken to present them factually). Until it is a requirement for WP:Lists to demonstrate notability for each and every incident listed in lists, I consider your concerns inconsequential.--Huaiwei (talk) 10:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I was not trying to insinuate anything, and I'm sorry if you were offended by that, which was not my intention. You wrote that "In Singapore's context, any form of criminal violence involving uniformed personal is rare", and later, that "[The listed incidents] collectively tell a point" -and I thought that the point you meant was that Singapore has a low violent crime rate. If that is not the point, I apologize, but this is exactly the problem of using a list of incidents to "tell a point" - some people will get the wrong point from the list, so it's better to just make the point directly. I am aware that you have sourced these to papers, but I do not think that a single mention in a newspaper satisfies Wikipedia:Notability, and I doubt that each listed incident , even though it made the news for that day, would be notable enough for an article. Comparable articles on police forces mention how many officers were killed in the line of duty, sometimes breaking them out by category - but none are as detailed as this section. I'll wait and see what consensus emerges through the 3rd opinion request I've submitted, and then edit the article accordingly. Canadian Monkey (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
First, if I may just repeat a key point, your quotation from Wikipedia:Notability refers to the notability of individual articles, not the individual content within articles. WP:N#CONTENT addresses this directly. Second, that each incident is only reported once in newspapers is but your presumption. Did you refer to the listed references before commenting, since some of the later articles actually mentioned earlier incidents as well? And even if this is true, how is that relevant to this discussion, when WP:NOT#NEWS still refers to the notability of articles? If your edit contravenes key wiki policies like Wikipedia:Notability, it will be duly removed. Finally, you appear to be the only one who assumes that the list of incidents are supposed to be advancing a notion that Singapore has a low crime rate. On the other hand, you directly insinuate that I am insisting on adding those comments purely to advance this position. This is absolutely insulting and dismissive of the work put in by fellow wikipedians.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I have asked for a 3rd opinion on this, given your reluctance to continue our discussion. Canadian Monkey (talk) 04:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no urgency to continue discussions with anyone displaying bad-faith behaviors.--Huaiwei (talk) 10:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't beleive I've displayed any bad faith. Canadian Monkey (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
See above.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
In case you didn't see it, I've given a third opinion below. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I have added a request for opinions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Law_Enforcement#Third_opinions_sought_at_Certis_CISCO.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a third opinion at that point; it's a request for comment. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Care to explain the difference?--Huaiwei (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
A third opinion is needed there's a discussion between two users. Now that I'm involved, we're up to three users. Since you didn't like my opinion, the next step up the DR process is to get as many different opinions involved so as to come to a consensus. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. So given that third opinionators are actively looking for feedback on their work, then perhaps I would just like to comment that if third party wikipedians wish to comment on any topic, it will be prudent if they at least demonstrate some familiarity with the topic before hand. I find it slightly amusing that I have to tell someone just what is considered relevant to the law enforcement agency is what is not.--Huaiwei (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

First off, it's not bad faith to ask for a third opinion. As to the issue at hand: I think the Incidents section is pushing a bit too much undue weight on the subject. Take a look at some other articles, such as NYPD and LAPD. While they have sections on fallen officers, they don't list each incident individually, and they don't include the officers' names. I think the entire section on here could be refactored into a few sentences. On a side note, I'd probably say the same thing about all the subsections of Issues.

I'd also encourage you both to use the reference templates, listed at WP:CIT. They'd go a long way to make this page look better. Anyway, I hope all this helps. I'll be watching this page for the next few days and will be engaged in the conversation. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

First, my bad faith comment has nothing to do with his initiative to ask for a third opinion. Second, comparisons with other articles is moot, for the incidents listed are not a section of "fallen officers" or anything equivalant (how is notable incidents, cases of service lapses, corruption and suicide supposed to amount to "fallen officers"?. They simply illustrate points mentioned in the said articles. Third, most of the said references already use WP:CIT. If you may assist to apply them for the remainder of references listed, than that will be most appreciated. Thanks.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I compared it to those other articles because a bunch of the incidents listed mention the deaths of officers. The other articles also list nothing of notable incidents or anything like that; truly notable events, such as Amadou Diallo, are reported on by multiple news sources. Could you also speak to why this isn't a case of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
If you consider any notable information as missing, than you have every right to add it yourself. Not by turning it into a basis to compare other articles with. In what way are incidents concerning security lapses, murders in the course of duty, successful prevention of armed robbies, corruption and suicide not intrinsically relevant to an article on law enforcement, when all of them deals directly either with the normal course of duty for law enforcers, or are related to common pitfalls of law enforcement agencies?--Huaiwei (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Your last sentence - 'all of them deals directly either with the normal course of duty for law enforcers, or are related to common pitfalls of law enforcement agencies' - goes right to the heart of the matter. All these incidents are indeed the normal course of duty for law enforcers, and related to common pitfalls - and becuase of that, they are not notable, and don't deserve any special mention. We expect the police to foil violent crime, using force where needed, and we don't need to highlight every case when this has happened. Canadian Monkey (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Canadian Monkey, kindly provide evidence that the incidents listed are a complete list of all incidents which has occured within any said timeframe. Kindly cite a reference stating six CISCO Constables were killed since 1974 as per your claims[1]. If you actually believe every single incident involving CISCO officers are were listed, than I can safely conclude that you do not have much familiarity with this company, the crime situation in Singapore, and perhaps even differing social attitudes towards crime and law enforcement in various societies. Perhaps officers beating up racial minorities is common place and not newsworthy in a society you are familiar with, but kindly do not assume this is the same the world over. This is an English encyclopedia of the world, and not merely of your society.--Huaiwei (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I've reverted Huaiwei's reversion. These edits are fine and are based on consensus reached. Each of the five deaths were referenced; if you want to add a sentence or two where they've survived is fine, but it doesn't need to be individually listed. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Kindly review what you have just commented before I question your involvement in this issue. Canadian Monkey's edit reads "Since 1974, five Cisco Constables have died in the line of duty." This is completely false (I consciously selected only noteworthy incidents out of plenty others which I have dug up from research in news archives. Did he do the neccesary research to arrive at that conclusion?), and is not supported by sources linking to individual incidents which by no means suggest that there were no other incidents during that period. This is blatant violation of WP:V, and I suppose by your actions, that you are supporting this violation?--Huaiwei (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I've changed it to read "at least five..." - which is the number we have referenced. If there are more, feel free to add them. The fact that this was apparently just a subset of the total killed in the line of duty further highlights the fact that this was undue weight, as there is nothing to suggest why these incidents were notable, whereas other incidents in which officers were killed are not. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
It appears that you are sounding desperate to remove the text by going round and round in circles, citing policies and guidelines without fully understanding their basic intent. Did you do the neccesary research to allege undue weight? Are you aware of any other cases of crime which were under reported? If not, your opinions are merely based on speculation and unprofessional nitpicking. And if you feel the WP:Notability policy results in WP:UNDUE problems, it is up to you to bring this up to wider community for discussion. As long as you fail to do the neccesary research, fail to show competence in the field of law enforcement, and fail to demonstrate familiarity with the crime situation in Singapore, you have little weight to comment further on this issue.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:LE

The third party has requested that the Law Enforcement Wikiproject keep an eye on this article in light of the current discussion above. I can understand both original arguements, wikipedia is not a memorial, and police officers (unfortunate as it may be) do die in the line of duty in events which, in the context of the wider world, are not too significant (and before anyone shouts at me as a callus man who knows nothing of law enforcement and/or has no respect for fallen officers, I am a police officer and I work in a force where we have lost people) however in the context of an area with what may be a low crime rate, deaths may be noted, and loosing 5 offivers in thirty years is a very low number in comparison to some countries. Furthermore, the article in its current state does not list every incident, it gives four deaths from "assailants" and one from a particular event that is noteworthy enough to have its own article.

Therefore, I would suggest these minor tweaks:

  1. Change "Since 1974, at least five Cisco Constables have died in the line of duty. Four of them were killed by assailants[1][2][3][4], and one died in the Hotel New World disaster." to something like "[An officer] died in the (date of event) Hotel New World disaster, one of five killed in the line of duty/while on duty since 1974[5][6][7][8]"
  2. Merge the sentence into the rest of the text rather than having its own section, this keeps the content, however lessens the "memorial" aspect of it, which wikipedia is not, and also lessens the idea that the article is promoting events which, as mentioned before, may not be as notable in the context of the entire world. Again I state that this is me as a wikipedian talking, so I hope no one takes my comments to be unfeeling.

How does this sound to people? SGGH speak! 08:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is here is really between the following two versions: one where all the incidents are listed out, and one where they've been condensed. I forgot about WP:MEMORIAL, and I think that the longer version qualifies as such. SSGH, what do you think? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
In that case, certainly the condensed one. This problem occurs a lot in police force articles, however wikipedia is not the place for it. Looking at that longer version, those events are not notable enough for inclusion. Stick with the short version is my opinion. SGGH speak! 14:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
They have been reincluded at the moment, as they contain notable robbery foils, according to the editor who inserted them. I still disagree on notability and remain in favour of the short version. SGGH speak! 14:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I just reverted it. Thanks for the help. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

SGGH, as a member of Law Enforcement Wikiproject, I am a tad dissapointed by some of your comments. I fully understand what WP:MEMORIAL is all about, and what it tries to guard against, and that is the tendency by some to over-publish trival deaths for no reason than for them to act as "memorials". I fail to see how that applies in this regard. You may be a police officer by profession, but I wonder if you are aware of the basic fact that notability of a police officer's death is not automatically nullified by virtue of the high-risks associated with that profession, or that notability may be influcenced by circumstance and locality. You have pointed out correctly that in locations where crime rates are low, and in some locations under higher influence by East Asian social values, crimes against law enforcers (and by extension, anyone in higher authority) are particularly of great concern compared to some other localities, ceteris paribus. Deaths of law enforcers make plenty of news in Singapore, even if it was "just" a suicide or another routine traffic accident. Violent incidents in nightspots (which soon resulted in their complete removal from such places), random, unprovoked killings while on duty or at home (extremely uncommon), a murder by an ex-colleague even in relatively recent times, and cases of armed robbery at banks (there hasent been one in decades)...none of these are routine in Singapore's context. To rule that all cases ought to be removed on the basis of WP:MEMORIAL comnpletely negates WP:Notability, a key wikipedia policy. Until there is adequate consideration for these points, I would reinstate the disputed text if they are removed prematurely.--Huaiwei (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert

I've filed a Wikiquette alert due to Huaiwei reverting edits despite there being a consensus. The WQA can be seen here. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Concensus is not merely driven by majority view. It is an attempt to obtain concensus from users with opposing views to reach an amicable solution together. Your heavy-handed means of pushing your preferance across will not result in such a solution. I am utterly dissapointed that a user of your standing resorts to such means to fulfill your agendas.--Huaiwei (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Concensus is the will of the many, aligned along one agreement. The many in this case appear to have selected an option. As it says at the Wiki-alert, WP:CONCENSUS does not have to be WP:UNANIMOUS SGGH speak! 19:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Your comment do not defer much from mine. Concensus "means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome". Do you believe we have reached that stage in this negotiation process?--Huaiwei (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay regardless of the outcome of this discussion, we are not having a revert war, I have protected this page for 2 days as it stands as of 20:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC) because even is Huaiwei's additions are removed by concensus, I can see a revert war springing up out of this if it is not done properly. You are both respected and experienced editors, so I don't want such an opportunity to prevent itself. When discussion is complete, let me or another admin know. (Note I'm not taking sides by protecting one version over another, I am merely protecting at the first sign of an edit war.) SGGH speak! 20:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to start an edit war about this. I'll wait to see what comes of the WQA. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if you will then consider this comment as reason to revert again? Is this issue now about content or Wikiquette, such that the "best behaving" wikipedian automatically wins a content argument?--Huaiwei (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Wait, what? Cheeser's comment was directed at you - that you've got three users saying one thing and you're the only one disagreeing. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course it was directed at me. I am asking if you are going to use that as a reason to revert the article, instead of addressing my concerns made.--Huaiwei (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Just so we're on the same page: as I understand it, your biggest concern is that the condensed version is inaccurate. Is that correct? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
That at least was my primary concern towards the last few edits. Even subsequent edits were not entirely satisfactory, because it is extremely off to allege there are "at least" an XX number of deaths in a time period for it seems like an attempt to censor or hide the facts via an imprecise figure. And that said, why five, as thou this particular figure is sourced from anywhere? A collection of events deemed notable in wikipedia cannot suffice as a statistical source in itself!--Huaiwei (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
And add to the fact that they are not all "Constables". Two of them were actually Lance Corporals, leaving me wondering if folks here actually read the text carefully before making conclusions here?--Huaiwei (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so here's where we stand. You're unhappy that the facts are not being stated properly, and the rest of us are unhappy that the section is long, biased, WP:MEMORIAL, places undue weight on relatively insignificant events. I'll need some time to think about how to resolve this. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Well I commented at length on concerns over length, NPOV, WP:MEMORIAL, etc, and I have yet to see a comprehensive reply which actually discusses this issue directly. Instead, I see individuals either failing to respond, or responding by pilling on more and more policies and guidelines irregardless of comments made. This is highly demoralising to users who at least make an effort to argue their case. Factually and to their best ability, civily.--Huaiwei (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Shifting this down to another section. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Better safe than sorry :) SGGH speak! 20:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed User:Canadian Monkey's filling of the following report: [2]. I suppose the gloves are now off.--Huaiwei (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

More discussion

Huaiwei, your argument is that in East Asia, "crimes against law enforcers... are particularly of great concern" and that "Deaths of law enforcers make plenty of news in Singapore." That may be well and true, but on Wikipedia, Wiki policy trumps social values. Just because an event is reported on in the news does not make it notable - if it did, we'd have articles for every bank robbery and murder that's ever occurred in every part of the world. The bigger issue here is WP:UNDUE. The incidents section is putting too much emphasis on the deaths of non-notable police officers. Again, let me try to come up with a decent solution.

My question to you: you've said that the items listed in the the incidents section are only a handful of incidents that have occurred. In that case, what makes the ones on that list more notable than some others? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ {cite news | publisher = The Straits Times | date = 12 April 1976 | title = Guard shot dead at airport }}
  2. ^ "Hunt for bank raid killers". The Straits Times. 25 May 1977. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ "Cisco guard found murdered on Pulau Ubin". The Straits Times. 4 July 1980. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. ^ "Cisco guard shot dead by ex-colleague". The Straits Times. 8 March 2003. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  5. ^ {cite news | publisher = The Straits Times | date = 12 April 1976 | title = Guard shot dead at airport }}
  6. ^ "Hunt for bank raid killers". The Straits Times. 25 May 1977. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  7. ^ "Cisco guard found murdered on Pulau Ubin". The Straits Times. 4 July 1980. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  8. ^ "Cisco guard shot dead by ex-colleague". The Straits Times. 8 March 2003. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Certis CISCO. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 18:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Certis CISCO. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 08:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Certis CISCO. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 10:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Certis_Group/Archives/2021/April&oldid=1017909054"