Talk:Peel Regional Police

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian law.

Law Enforcement

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

More information:
/
	This article is being watched due to vandalism, edit wars or poor wikiquette.

Neutrality

I've tagged the "Misconduct Allegation" section for POV for the following reasons.

I am not sure whether the charges against Const. Sheldon Cook and Const. Roger Yeo should be in this section. The charges are not the result of their actions as police officers nor the police force is sued. It is lik saying that if any employee is charged with a crime then the whole company is criminal..

Addendum: I would just say that because officers Cook and Yeo are indeed police officers, the fact that they are being charged with a crime is a grievous enough reason for me. Yes, they're only human and will make mistakes, but these guys are supposed to be the guardians of the law and if they're being charged with a crime, I want to know about it no matter what. So in this case, yes, if an employee (police officer) is being charged with a crime then the whole company (the Peel Regional Police) is by proxy criminal. There must be no criminals in a police force, otherwise the law will suffer as a result. I already feel disgraced just by living in Peel and having these guys supposedly serve us.--Starlit Stalin 23:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Calling the whole company (PRP) criminal by proxy is way off base. It reflects a serious lack of understanding of justice and civics. It's seriously unfair and its an attitude that has no place in preparing a well written and balanced article. Wiggy! (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see the merit of balancing the good with the bad, but not necessarily the need to report on the actions of employees who are not at work or on duty. Every company, organization, group, etc. will have employees or members who break the law, but it would not be in anyone's interest to report all these occurrences in every entry. However, if a member of an organization or company is convicted of abusing their position to the point of making the news, then there may be merit in including the information in the entry. --JeffJ (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valid points all, but, for better or worse, police are held to a tough standard. Yeo's conduct was reported on in a major article in Maclean's magazine and I don't see how you untangle the mess of the man, his conduct, and his employment with the police. The disciplinary process he is being subject to is based on his employment as a police officer. I think it's important to keep it as even-handed as possible to avoid an overt anti-police bias. To simply remove, or bury it would be its own POV. To its credit the Peel force is dealing with Yeo in an up front manner and that is an important aspect of the whole thing. Wiggy! (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the allegations on Wade Michael Lawson, I cannot search any information online - so, it would be great if anyone can provide the info from neutral source. Secondly, it seems that the publication of the accused's badge number might be a bit excessive - I think the name is sufficient. Thirdly, it seems that the original author(s) have implied the two accused should be guilty - this is a dangerous. Unless proven in court / published by a reputable third-party source, this implication might be seen as not neutral and/or original research + libel. --Hurricane111 21:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV

POV removed, reworded, citations and additional information provided.

Bias

This article needs far more balance; the controversies are few and far between, relatively speaking, but this article seems to imply that there's been nothing but controversy with this police force. I'm going to tag this article for a POV-check. Mind matrix 16:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:PeelRegionalPoliceSymbol.jpg

Image:PeelRegionalPoliceSymbol.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 (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peel Police Censorship and Vandalism

Amazingly the Peel Police themselves continue to attempt to censor this Wikipedia article.

The IP Address: 204.138.85.6 has been responsible for a number of vandalisms where the “Controversies” section of this article is completely blanked out without explanation. Seen here: [[1]] You’ll notice that the Peel Police also have time, while on duty, using computers and internet access paid for by tax payers’ dollars to edit articles ranging from the Phoenix Roadrunners IHL team, to questions on “Tampon Usage”.

A simple WHOIS lookup shows that 204.138.85.6 is in fact registered to the Peel Regional Police. [2] IP Addrss: 204.138.85.6 OrgName: Peel Regional Police OrgID: PRP Address: 7750 Hurontario Street City: Brampton StateProv: ON PostalCode: L6V-3W6 Country: CA

NetRange: 204.138.80.0 - 204.138.87.255 CIDR: 204.138.80.0/21 NetName: PRP NetHandle: NET-204-138-80-0-1 Parent: NET-204-0-0-0-0 NetType: Direct Assignment NameServer: NS1.EASYDNS.COM NameServer: NS2.EASYDNS.COM NameServer: REMOTE1.EASYDNS.COM NameServer: REMOTE2.EASYDNS.COM Comment: RegDate: 1994-08-30 Updated: 2007-04-20

OrgNOCHandle: DBA70-ARIN OrgNOCName: Bachuk, David OrgNOCPhone: +1-905-453-2121 OrgNOCEmail:

OrgTechHandle: GBI3-ARIN OrgTechName: Bignell, Gary OrgTechPhone: +1-905-453-2121 OrgTechEmail: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.244.251.246 (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Various IP-contributors are constantly removing the "Controversies" section, e.g. 63.99.137.226. Please use the talk page for explanations. Maybe we can find a compromise. Otherwise, I think this is vandalism which can easyly be reverted. --Cyfal (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mindmatrix above has spoken about POV problems, and the controversies section may well have POV problems, however complete removal is vandalism. Wikipedia operates on priciples of discussion, concensus and then change. If vandalism continues, the IP addresses will just be warned and then eventually blocked from editing wikipedia. The police force does not have the right to remove vast content from this article, they don't own it, it would be the same as them censoring the press if the press printed an article on thier controversies. This could escalate into a matter for the Admins noticeboard and WP:COI if it continues. It's quite controversial stuff, I'll keep my eye open. SGGH ^speak! 16:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, incidentally, the references need to use ref tags and there needs to be a footnotes section, rather than just these [www.google.com] box links :) SGGH ^speak! 16:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your support and balanced words, SGGH. Phew, with your last remark you put me to work... but now it's done. --Cyfal (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff, the article is also protected for 5 days from IP editing. SGGH ^speak! 22:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to interject a few comments. First, the issue of balance in the article still exists. It over-represents criticism of the force, and under-represents the benefits. (That is, we have a selection bias about information presented.) Second, we can probably have a more thorough and relevant treatment of some of theses topics using sources other than media. Also, criticism should be incorporated into sections specific to that sub-topic, as opposed to being sectioned off separately; understnadably, this cannot be done yet in this article, since it doesn't have sufficient coverage to do so.

I agree that wholesale deletion of material is vandalism, though we should temper that with context. If material is outright false or defamatory, it should be purged. Material with reliable citations should be kept. Mind matrix 00:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and with discussion like this that can be achieved. I hope the vandalism issue won't carry on once protection lifts, but if it does feel free to message me. SGGH ^speak! 00:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:SIULOGO.jpg

The image Image:SIULOGO.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article is unbalanced

As I stated previously, there are some concerns with this article. Chief among them is that it is quite unbalanced, giving undue weight to the controversies section. Moreover, it cites material from only the past five years, with negligible mention of earlier periods. This article has previously received attention from anon editors who deleted this section outright, and although wholesale deletion is unwarranted, it does need trimming. Perhaps this material could be better incorporated into the text, with each entry in the controversies section appearing alongside a mention of the case itself. Of course, only truly notable cases should appear here. Mind matrix 22:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting death of Michael Wade Lawson

The officers had a preliminary hearing as to the evidence, where the judge found cause to proceed. It was not a "preferred indictment via the Minister" this is a falsehood. This is referenced. Edit made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glinebet (talk • contribs) 22:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]