Talk:New South Wales Police Force

Orphaned references in New South Wales Police Force

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of New South Wales Police Force's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ReferenceA":

• From State Protection Group: "Counter Terrorism & Special Tactics". Nsw.gov.au.
• From The Guardian: Audit Bureau of Circulations Ltd– abc.org.uk

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• NSW-Police.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Possible removal of "Controversies" page

This section is underdeveloped. Content could perhaps be better incorporated into the "History" section, which already has information on historical controversies including the Wood Royal Commission. PatriotMusketeer7476 (talk) 05:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah 203.220.191.202 (talk) 06:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Flag - is it official?

There is no cited reference to support the claim that any flag has been officially approved for the NSW Police. A pale blue on white with crest in the centre flag has been used on occasions but use does not make it either operational (approved by the commissioner or delegate) or official (approved by the government). Searches of sources, including a booklet published by the NSW government on flags of NSW reveal no reference to any NSW Police flag. Information on the Flags of the World website indicate that at one stage, several flags had been proposed for the NSW Police but no flag had been approved and most NSW Police facilities fly just the NSW state flag. The Flags of the World website referred to the pale blue on white flag as a "house flag". These statements clearly suggested that while the pale blue on white flag has been used, it is not official. Information from the source including a quote was added to the article and a reference with link to the source added but repeatedly deleted in excessive reversions by user Leftregister (who also trolled the editor to other articles and reverted their other edits). Even if the flag had been adopted within the NSW Police, as with the plethora of logos invented within NSW government agencies from the 1980s, many so lacking in wide recognition as to have no effect of conveying government authority, it would not have escaped section 4 of the State Arms, Symbols and Emblems Act 2004 and NSW government edict to standardize visual identity and branding on its adoption of the NSW government Waratah logo. Despite all of this, Leftregister objected to the deletion of the flag image from the article and also objected to its alternative inclusion in the section on banners, flags and pennants juxtaposed with relevant information rather than in the infobox. As a compromise, the flag image was retained in the infobox but tagged with "citation needed" to encourage users to find a source to support the claim that the flag is official but even that was also (unhelpfully) deleted by Leftregister. Leftregister again deleted not just the citation needed tag but several separate edits of unrelated material, targeting the editor rather than just the reasonable extent of changes to which Leftregister objected. Leftregister bizarrely suggests, in double-negative logic, that the editor find a source to prove the flag is not official. Governments and their agencies don't spend their resources publishing details of all the things that they have not done and are not official. Very apparently, the lack of a reliable source to support the claim is evidence of its negative. The citation needed tag is designed to be used to encourage users to find a source to resolve issues. I'd be satisfied if a user cited a source to substantiate the flag. Deleting the citation needed tag is just unhelpful.115.42.13.190 (talk) 11:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Putting aside your disruptive behaviour and edit warring (forcefully making unsubstantiated changes to the accepted status quo without consensus or providing sources to back your changes), you have blatantly ignored the presence of the flag at official NSW Police events and ceremonies. If you believe a change should be made to a page, the obligation is on YOU to convince other editors via sources or appropriate reasoning to support and accept your changes, NOT the editors simply maintaining the status quo of the page. A quick google search wil reveal multiple examples of the flag being used:

[1]https://narrabricourier.com.au/2022/07/14/local-police-honoured-at-medal-ceremony/

[2]https://www.facebook.com/nswpoliceforce/photos/a.395208846184/10155953644711185/?type=3

[3]https://newcastleweekly.com.au/former-lake-macquarie-detective-senior-sergeant-patrick-crass-awarded-apm/

[4]https://www.northerndailyleader.com.au/images/transform/v1/crop/frm/3FRrb3AuBjKJGNhBeTSDxy/d46f7eab-f54f-48ae-bf54-c4ca20dc3a49.jpg/r0_152_4032_2921_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg

[5]https://www.dailyliberal.com.au/images/transform/v1/crop/frm/175630965/90508c1e-12a3-45a2-8c5f-af7c022e9b89.JPG/r472_484_3865_3029_w4032_h3024_fmax.jpg

[6]https://www.bluemountainsgazette.com.au/story/6504750/police-awards-presentation/

[7]https://www.facebook.com/nswpoliceforce/photos/nsw-police-proudly-participate-in-the-2016-sydney-mardi-gras-parade/10153617732006185/?paipv=0&eav=AfbCGlT3n22bFOs-daS3-RFIlutJRRLbKEsx9tDPHIT0SKjKFVphS1BUaKH-KAwei18&_rdr Leftregister (talk) 04:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Vandal! Leftregister has repeatedly deleted references and links to sources to revert to their POV. My edits to the article and my discussion above in this Talk page have acknowledged that the flag had been used but what is dubious is whether the flag is official. As to a google search revealing "examples of the flag being used", Internet searches also reveal uses of other unapproved and unofficial NSW Police flags, including a rainbow coloured flag with NSW Police badge. So, records of use do not substantiate the status of the flag. The Flags of the World website suggests the flag is not official and refers to it as merely a "house flag". This source was quoted, cited and linked in the article but deleted by Leftregister in their determination to maintain their unsubstantiated POV. There is no valid reason to delete a citation needed tag. The citation needed tag should only be removed when a supporting citation is provided, that is its whole purpose. Leftregister just wants to suppress that a citation cannot be provided to support their POV.

I suggest, Leftregister stops being malicious and allows edits of other material that are supported by references or merely sensible and reasonable rewordings and that the citation needed tag to the flag is restored to encourage users to find a supporting source and resolve the issue.115.42.13.190 (talk) 08:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Simply accusing others of vandalism without any substantiated claims will not actually make it true, nor will it actually get other editors on your side. Ironically, your repeated efforts to make unsourced changes to this page without seeking any form of consensus or initial discussion is more fitting of the vandalism label. (Flags of the World isn't a reliable source in this context either btw). Once again, it is YOUR obligation to obtain a consensus and provide evidence if you would like to make changes to the accepted status quo of a page, NOT the person maintaining it.

Any changes to the page in fact (even including the introduction of a "citation needed" tag) CAN be challenged and removed if consensus has not been gained first. You have very clearly demonstrated your inability to do this.

If you really are seeking to get others editors on your side, you're really not doing yourself any favours by being petulant and nasty Leftregister (talk) 10:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Rogerson and McNamara 2014 crimes relevance

@OpticalBloom241: According to editor 27.96.192.15, Rogerson left the police force in 1986 and McNamara left in 2012 [8], if this is correct as it is not in the source a Sydney Morning Herald article, neither were a serving police officer in the police force when the crimes were committed in May 2014. Accordingly, it is of no relevance to an article on the New South Wales Police Force as they were not serving officers at the time and the article does not allege that any serving officers were involved. Editor 27.96.192.15 also added "following corruption, extortion and murder allegations" that is not in the source. Melbguy05 (talk) 09:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

RFC - former police officers Rogerson and McNamara crimes in 2014

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should two former NSW Police detectives, Roger Rogerson and Glen McNamara, crimes in 2014 be included in the Controversies section?

Note: Roger Rogerson was dismissed from the police force in 1986 and Glen McNamara left the police force in 1990. Melbguy05 (talk) 13:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

References

• Absolutely not. Neither was a serving police officer at the time of the 2014 crimes. WWGB (talk) 09:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
• No – A former employer is not embroiled in controversy when its ex-employees commit crimes. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
• No. Not serving officers 61.68.141.56 (talk) 11:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. The article is very silent on the forces long history of corruption, especially at the time when Rogerson was at the centre of much of the corruption.--Grahame (talk) 07:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, needs adaption/expansion Agree with Grahamec above. Neither of the two were police officers when this happened, but Rogerson was involved in several corruption and/or criminal incidents while on the force, and he has been described as "killer cop" [9] or "best policeman money could buy" [10]: He [...] shot three men in the line of duty [...] In June 1981, he gunned down drug dealer Warren Lanfranchi in an inner-city laneway, stealing $15,000 in cash and loading him up with a defective pistol from 1900. All while 18 of his cop mates looked on. The paragraph should be expanded by including these events in the Controversies section of this page. Broc (talk) 07:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Ok, so when you say "Yes" you really mean "No, but I think we should include a different set of controversies", is that right? 5225_C (talk • contributions) 16:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC
    • At the moment it makes no mention of involvement in Indigenous massacres in the 19th century or gay hate crimes in the 20th century. It reads like an advertisement prepared by the NSW police media department. It would be best of deleted in my opinion.--Grahame (talk) 03:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
      • Also no mention of corrupt commissioners like Norman Allan and Frederick Hanson, and crooked officers like Trevor Haken and Chook Fowler. WWGB (talk) 05:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
      • Incompleteness does not require exclusion. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    • 5225C given the controversy involves the same person, I would leave the current bit and expand it by adding the incidents while he was on the force. Then both controversies would fit on the page. Removing it will not help WP:NPOV. Broc (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
      • That's a tenuous connection to draw. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
  • @Broc: The 2014 crimes have nothing to the do with the police force as the two persons were not employed by the police force at the time. Rogerson had been gone for 28 years and McNamara had been gone for 24 years. It is WP:OFFTOPIC. It is a police force article not a Roger Rogerson article. He has his own article that details what he got up to after he left the police force. Melbguy05 (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
• @Melbguy05 I'm with the last few above — that corrupt acts happened outside of employment timelines does not negate its context where the men operated within circles mobilised by the status of relationship networks that high ranking ex officers would naturally retain Jondvdsn1 (talk) 10:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  • @Jondvdsn1: The newspaper article does not say that "the men operated within circles mobilised by the status of relationship networks" or were high ranking. Melbguy05 (talk) 05:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

    I do not think it would be too controversial to suggest it. He's an ex high-ranking officer. If "high-ranking" is the issue, then, more-than-just-a-footsoldier. I am also inclined to ask why not include the crimes? Jondvdsn1 (talk) 07:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

    Just to add context, I'm fairly certain this is the same bloke who now leaves officers in 2024 using the term "Rodgy Dodgy," or "Rodge Dodge," or variations of that ilk. Apologies for the double-reply. JD Jondvdsn1 (talk) 07:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• No, not relevant as written. If there are reliable sources that connect their 2014 crimes to corruption in the force, it would likely be appropriate to include the crimes along with that context. But we can't just assume (or by implication lead the reader to assume) that there's a connection between their roles in the force and their subsequent crimes, even if it seems likely. -- Visviva (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

School Liaison Police

Currently under "The Dog Unit" last paragraph, I believe this should be seperate. MaxHolstegge (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)