Talk:People's Armed Police

Name change and/or moving of page?

The department has been officially re-named Chinese People's Armed Police Force (or CAPF, as written on their arm patches). Suggest we move the page, anyone agree? -- Seng Yew, 23:58, October 27th, 2006 (UTC +8)

When did this take place? Do you have a reference? A lot of things are named one thing in China and un-officially called something else in English. Take their "President" for example. He's not REALLY a President. He is the Paramount Leader or General Secretary. -Knowl -<(I am questing for Knowledge!) (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The Taiwan Situation

It has been speculated by various elements of the media that the People's Republic of China would use the armed police force to occupy Taiwan, should it deem this necessary, instead of using the People's Liberation Army. This is because the armed police force receives training similar to that of the regular army, has advanced equipment, and more importantly, the use of the police force would make the situation an "internal affair" and would make foreign intervention more difficult politically.

this would be impossible without some "assistance", the PAP does not have the capability to reach Taiwan, the only possible scenario is that KMT loyalist(professional soldier, non-conscript part of ROCA that control most of the armoured force) defect with KMT; turning Taiwan into an Ireland like scenario where PAP can then land in KMT controlled airfield and port. and of course if that is the case then no foreign intervention would be possible either with PAP or PLA.

anyway the reality is no country will intervene on Taiwan behalf because it is impossible to win. the treaty between US-Japan prevent the US from using Japanese bases to launch an attack against forces that is not at war with Japan, so unless PRC attack Japan first or Japan declare war on PRC, the bulk of US force in Asia can't assist. this leave Guam and South Korea and US know well that the moment US force move from Korea, DPRK will start something too. All US can do is to blockade China and force a compromises, US will probably look away if Taiwan get maintain self governance like HK, they can walk away saying they "save the democracy". PRC would have walk away with what it wanted, the unification of China, it doesn't matter if Taiwan is self-rule, all they want is only keep their border a whole. 218.186.17.240 (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Arms

In China all members of Ministry of Public Security are armed. Vess

This isn't true. Most ordinary MPS officers are in fact unarmed.

Roadrunner (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Kashgar incident of 4 August 2008

The mysterious street battle in Kashgar, Xinjiang appears to have been internal to members of PAP, trying to kill each other first using a large truck and then machetes. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/29/world/asia/29kashgar.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.144.195.188 (talk) 21:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 20:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The PAP in the picture: Male of Female?

I know some may find this silly, but someone has suggested that the PAP in the picture is actually female. It is quite possible, noting the apparent absence of an Adam's apple. Are females allowed to serve in the PAP? That is the bigger question. -Knowl -<(I am questing for Knowledge!) (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

2018 Reform Proposal

• Wang, Di, ed. (2018-03-21). "中共中央印发《深化党和国家机构改革方案》" [CCP Central Committee Issues Proposal for Deepening the Reform of Party and State Institutions]. Beijing. Xinhua News Agency. Retrieved 2018-06-28.

Page 6 is the source text for the proposal regarding PAP. -Mys_721tx (talk) 02:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Infobox Military unit

I think that, especially given the PAP's subordination to the sole Central Military Commission, a military unit infobox would be appropriate, maybe alongside the agency infobox.--Mach1988 (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Dubious statement on reputation

User:Horse Eye's Back added a statement on PAP's reputation in Special:Diff/989899561. The same Diplomat source that the reason of the mockery was the fear of PAP's "right to make arbitrary arrests". The Firefighting Corps and Boarder Guard Corps (which the Coast Guard was a part of) were the only units with powers to enforce law only due to the dual-role of the Public Security Corps. The Internal Guard and the Specialist Corps cannot enforce law nor make arrest. Since the source made an exception claim without presenting any evidence, I will remove the statement in question in its entirety.-Mys_721tx (talk) 22:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I second that. I support your action about that part of content and that explanation too.93.86.179.253 (talk) 11:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Unless you have a source which backs you up I’l stick with the WP:RS we have... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

1. Guo 2012 p. 230: Except the MPS-led active service troops within the PAP, such as the Border Defense, Firefighting, and Guard Corps, other PAP units do not have the power to impose sanctions (e.g., arrest and detain)
2. WP:NEWSBLOG: Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online columns they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process. and that [p]lease do note that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources.

@Horse Eye's Back: The claim comes from an opinion piece, is being presented as a fact, and is directly contradicted by a reliable source. -Mys_721tx (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

A source from 2012 cant contradict a contemporary source. The author is in fact a professional and subject matter expert (Girard is widely published as a quick JSTOR check can confirm). Its also NOT an opinion piece. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

1. As a primary source, the distinction between an opinion pieces and an analysis is moot.
2. Girard's claim goes against what other reliable sources know about the PAP pre- and post-reform and therefore is exceptional. Girard also failed to provide any evidence to that claim.
   1. Wuthnow 2019 p. 8: There were law enforcement services that reported to the MPS
   2. Wuthnow 2019 p. 21: The reforms addressed this problem in part by divesting the PAP of most law enforcement and economic functions
3. Regarding Girard's publications, did she go by any other names? I found no results of au:("Bonnie Girard") on JSTOR or WorldCat.

In any case, Girard's claim ticks three out of the four WP:REDFLAG. At the very minimal, the claim must be attributed to Girard instead of presented as a fact. -Mys_721tx (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I’ve reconsidered, I don’t have the time to go point by point but I can see that the overall thrust of your argument is a good one. It probably does need to be attributed if used at all, I’m going to revert unless I can find a stronger source or more OK sources saying the same thing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

How can I report a person I know who involved online scamming, phishing, online illegal gaming and hijacking.

I want to report a person who involved in scamming, online gaming, phishing, hacking and hijacking. 2001:4450:810E:7D00:B072:AC23:D2FB:7B97 (talk) 11:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)