Talk:Police/Archive 1

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)

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.

Un-professional images

Is it me or...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cwjqu4as5.jpg | the man at the far right and the one with the ram are both exposed by the windows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_Customs_and_Border_Protection_officers.jpg | aren't they supposed to be a little more spaced out than this, not only does this makes them an easy target... it also looks gay

Heaven forbid anyone should think there's any gayness in the police. bobanny 02:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Police_Poland_2_AB.jpg | I'm no professional but I think someone should get a firearm safety lecture Matt714 06:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - bienvunu sur page amir ben gharbia/text***************************************************************

There seems to be a disproportionate number of images of the Polish police, so I have tagged the section in question as lacking in neutrality. Please add different images if possible. --JagSeal 22:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC) www.facebook.com *-* amir ben gharbia--Amir ben gharbia (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2012 (tunisia) www.google.fr/galaxy life/sur facebook[reply]

Pig

Someone seems to have changed 'Pig' to redirect here. Can we have this changed back to redirecting to the 'pigs' article, or even to the disambiguation page? 15:50 (GMT) 21 February 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.11.60.208 (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It seeems to have already been sorted btw. Thanks for the note. Simply south 15:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what's the problem with "pig" pointing to the police page? it's a common term, no? simply acknowledging this seems to be a neutral position. i don't see anyone trying to destroy the page over it. Christopher hayes 15:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)christopher hayes[reply]

The problem is that when you look up pig in an encyclopedia, the information you find should be about an animal. Deleting an article in order to make it into a redirect for a derogatory term doesn't really make much sense. --Onorem Dil 15:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

assessment

Another good article, held back by problems mentioned below, particularly lack of references.--SGGH 16:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving comments placed on main page here:

This article is highly POV.

It has the POV of the police and of lawyers.

For example, "critics" say that police are how the government uses its monopoly on force, but that police perform this function for government is an objective fact, and is therefore NPOV.

The rest of the article is riddled with police jargon, which gives it its police POV. For example, "the major role of the police is to discourage and investigate crimes, and if able to apprehend suspected perpetrator(s), to detain them, and inform the appropriate authorities." It's POV in part because it places more emphasis on the possibility that the "suspected perpetrator(s)" might by GUILTY than it places on the possibility that they might be innocent. In Western societies, a court must decide on guilt after the arrest takes place. A NPOV wording would put equal emphasis on both possibilities. The police jargon used (ie "detain", "crime", "perpetrator") insinuates the POV that breaking the law is morally wrong, and enforcing the law is morally right.

A more neutral description of their role might read "the major role of police is to forcibly capture anyone who has or may have acted in defiance of the law." Notice that in this wording, equal weight is given to both guilt and innocence, and the fact that what police do is violence is right out in the open, instead of masked by legalistic euphemisms, thus eliminating the POV that police violence is morally justified. By eliminating the use of the word crime, I remove the non-neutral connotation that breaking the law is morally wrong. Meanwhile, those views are not replaced by their opposites (crime is good and police violence is bad), which makes the description NPOV.

The article is descriptive of an entity, not a philospohical discussion. Being encyclopedic does not mean giving equal weight to all points of view in every sentence. A disclaimer somewhere near the beginning can divert the person looking for such a discussion to the proper philosphical article in the philosophical portal. Sometimes the mere abuse of NPOV-POV gives weight to one side, and this suggestion does. I agree about the jargon criticsm, but it's tough to avoid on occasion without sounding semi-literate. I added a paragraph at the beginning of the United States section which stresses that the police are tasked with putting people/organizations into the system (to determine if a crime was comitted and if so, did they commit it). How they continue through it or are cleared from it at various points along the way is a whole nother article in itself.--Buckboard 05:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, what a great topic! We should discuss famous police departments (Scotland Yard, NYPD, LAPD, others?), the history of police, the legal distinction(s) between military and police (and lacks thereof in some societies), what training police officers are typically required to have, comparison and contrast of policing systems, and police behavior...golly, the list goes on and on.

Yeah, and policing is a lifetime study as a discipline, some of these issues should get their own subarticles so we don't swamp the incoming reader user:clarka

Have to agree, this is seriously POV. It makes no mention of the darker side of police forces like e.g. Gestapo or the Stasi and the misuse of power concomitant therewith. Moreover, it makes assumptions about a) the nature of property b) the constitution of order and c) the nature of legislative authority and its ultimate derivation. This needs to be seriously addressed or it should imo be flagged directly with a POV flag. Sjc 08:14, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well fix it. There's plenty that can be said about police brutality, the conservative nature of police forces, the disjunction between the actual effectiveness of additional policing and the propensity of people to vote for it, their use in political oppression, and so on and so forth. However, don't try and turn this into an Indymedia anti-police rant either. --Robert Merkel 09:16, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that was implicit in my tone or was my intention. However, this nevertheless does look like a disproportionately POV article. Fortunately the police lie a long way outside my real ambit of interest, except perhaps in so far as the activities of earlier police systems (e.g. Burleigh's system of spies and informers) are concerned, and I am dealing with those as I go along. I am more concerned that we can set up an article as unbalanced as this as an encyclopaedic entry, and I would implore someone who has a background in criminology to take a good long hard look at this topic and fix it. Sjc 14:38, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've added an "Anarchist perspective" section inside the "Function in society" section, which should begin to help remedy the POV problem; as well as to include radical analysis for the sake of information. I'll be making further edits to this article to ensure NPOV. Word up. Zanturaeon 04:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest there is a distinct difference between "Police Organization" and "Police Power". The single term "Police" as used to head this article does injustice to both. The points above are all valid, but they sound like an anti-police rant when referring to a "thing" (and police departments/agencies etc are "things") which has no inherent human philosophical characteristics one way or the other. If they have a "conservative nature," that is a reflection of the culture they are a part of, again a philosophical issue. Any way you cut it, a second article is needed, and this appears to be one of those topics where disambiguation is unavoidable--a person looking for information along either vein will have to start at a branch in the road. There is a great article waiting to be written out there on Police Powers.--Buckboard 06:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction with Texas Ranger Division

The Texas Ranger Division article says that the Texas Rangers are the oldest law enforcement agency. BlueGoose 01:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Centralized vs Decentralized

Perhaps, it would be interesting for many readers if the article included some more elaboration on centralized vs decentralized police models. The Encyclopedia Americana's Police article has an excellent entry on this in the passage starting from: "The proliferation of small decentralized police forces in the United States has produced an almost chaotic overlap of police jurisdiction. On the other hand, this development provides a bulwark against the threat of police ever becoming a nationalized political force or a secret agency of domestic spies...". I cannot simply paste this and the following paragraphs from Americana into Wikipedia because it would violate the Copyright. But if someone with a better knowledge of the topic and better English than mine would write on that, the article might very well benefit.

Article fails to mention controversy over existence of police. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:27 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)

The truth is a mighty hard thing to defend against, sir :) Subtlety is your friend. Bear in mind the intellectual limits of those who would lie. Your statement is not entirely true! Blatant force of truth will be fought and deleted, but don't underestimate the audience, and bear in mind that this is a two-way street.

Article fails to mention secret police. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:28 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)

Can we list our favourite nicknames for the constabulary?

Pigs
Filth
Rozzers
Old Bill

Fuzz --Daniel C. Boyer
Boeuf -- French translation of German epithet: "Beef"
Poulet -- French: "chicken"

as in (in France): "what do you get when the cop shop burns down?"

Ans: "Poulet Roulet" [anglicized transliteration: poo-lay roo-lay]== roast chicken

How's this ;)

Key
I	Inoffensive or Informal
O	Offensive
C	Critical

Cop (I)
Copper (I) British, from Cop +-er. See Also, ACAB.
Bobby (I) British A reference to the Victorian Home Secretary (Interior Minister) Sir Robert Peel who set up the first Police Force in London (Metropolitan Police Act 1829). Also called "Peelers", though the term is now obsolete.
Plod (O/C) British, usually offensive, from Enid Blyton's Noddy books. Can connote Ineptitude. It can also be informal/inoffensive in the right context.
Popo (I) American, probably from the PO letters on uniforms [See Also]
Pig (C/O) Derogatory, probably related to fascism
Flatfoot (I)
Flic as in le flic
Fuzz (I) American, unknown origin, informal
Busies (I) British, inoffensive
Bluebottle (O) derived from Wasp, nickname for British Traffic Wardens?
Filth (C) British, maybe related to fascism (from earlier 'Nazi Filth'), or corruption
Old Bill (I) British, 1960's According to Chambers, the nickname probably arose because many policemen between the World Wars wore large walrus moustaches like that of 'Old Bill', a popular cartoon character of the time created by the British cartoonist B Bairnsfather (1888-1959).
Rozzer (O)
Tit Head (O) British, related to the helmet British beat officers wear, which is usually round in shape surmounted by a point or knob of some kind
Peeler (I) Northern Irish see "Bobby"
Boys in Blue (I) Complimentary, related to uniform
Finest (I) Suffixed against constabulory or region, Complimentary

yes, they're universally despised.

Think about it: in the USA, at least, even among small children there is the notion of a "tattle tale". This is not something you want to be in this society. A cop's role is to inform upon his fellow man for money. Children are taught from an early age to despise the police...

--Bagpuss

What I do not like is that I typed in "Old Bill", hoping to find an article which explained the above (which I have just inserted), but I was diverted to this article "Police" which is far too long, general and uncritical to be of much use to anybody. The only reference to "Old Bill" on this page is this small part on the discussion page. It is not good enough, there should be a separate article "Old Bill" pointing towards "Policing in the United Kingdom".

Sweetalkinguy 20:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that my granddaddy, who served for 30 years in the San Jose (California) Police Department from the 40s to the 70s, said it best: "You might call cops pigs, but try calling a hippie when you're in trouble." Call the cops whatever you will, but see what you call them if ever you must call them... Tommythegun 10:50 10 May 2006 (UTC)

And sure, I know that if I ever need a violent thug to come kick disruptive teenagers out of my house or some such thing, I'll know who to call. Don't be so proud of your granddaddy being a policeman. As far as I'm concerned, Police on call are bastards for hire. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. There's only one type of person lower than a cop, and that's a parking inspector. 150.203.11.219 05:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main deficiency in this article reads more like a comparison of the US police with the UK police than a generalized article on police. I also found this factually questionable and highly British in POV, so I removed "particularly the United States".

"In many jurisdictions, particularly the United States, police officers carry guns in the normal course of their duties."

The practice of police carrying firearms is hardly particular to the United States. --Daniel Quinlan 09:26 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Mr. Quinlan: Could you please explain the term "less-lethal" (either in the article or here [making clear why there it no need to explain it]? I think it may not be familiar to people. --Daniel C. Boyer 12:58 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

No problem, "less-lethal" (also sometimes "less than lethal" although that term is somewhat confusing since it could be interpreted "non-lethal", but is meant to mean "not as lethal as a firearm") is the more recent term used to describe what was originally (and quite incorrectly) called "non-lethal" weapons. These weapons, while intended to be non-lethal, still pose a significant (if not great) risk of death or serious injury. For example, rubber bullets, projectile bean bags, and tear gas cannisters can hit someone in the wrong place (the eye or head) or be fired at too close in range and can result in death. Decapacitating chemicals and electric weapons ("taser" guns can cause more adverse reactions in some people (although I don't know of any deaths due to taser, I have seen a story about a miscarriage which you can interpret how you'd like).

History of policing?

The main page today states that the London police force was the first official police force. That begs for information about what came before that? What was policing like before 'official' police forces and what made it more 'official' than others. - Taxman 16:59, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Concur - need more on history, and better linking to related articles. Also a section on names for the police and the origins of these. Rd232 10:34, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Is there information available on police folklore---perhaps the origin of stereotypes? A police officer asked me to track down the origin of the police/dounut stereotype. Does anyone know where I might look?

Reorganising long lists

I'm trying to sort out the long lists on this page somewhat. I agree that most, if not all of the things mentioned are relevant, but it's all somewhat undifferentiated and hard to follow at the moment.

I've started by grouping the list of forces by country further into continents. If anyone doesn't think it's appropriate... that's what the revert thing's for. PMcM 01:36, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Changed about some of the other long lists at the end too, mostly breaking them up into smaller sub-categories. A few terms didn't fit into any of these, and were lost along the way. If anyone's particularly attached to any of them, then please feel free to stuff them in somewhere appropriate.

Not too fond of the list of notable police personnel, but not sure if it warrants a 'list of famous police personnel' page. Maybe a category? PMcM 02:04, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pictures

How about fewer pictures of police vehicles and more pictures of actual police officers in various situations?AndyL 02:00, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

AndyL, I agree but it's not that easy. I put the the English police car pic on and I do have some pictures of the police. But I'm not putting them on because their faces show and I have no way of getting their permission. If I blur their faces, the pic looks really weird. Perhaps someone does have pics of police where their faces don't show clearly. - Adrian Pingstone 10:17, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Police in Media section?

How about a "Police in the Media" section? It could depict how police forces are depicted in shows and movies and could references popular shows such as COPS. It could also outline various police stereotypes... -BrandonR 07:00, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

I generally take offense to the paragraph relating to "cop-killers". This makes it seem as if all US police officers are ignorant monsters who would simply kill a suspect.

Uh, if you were actually familiar with American law enforcement, with its history, and the history of litigation against law enforcement, you would realize that the rule is quite common nationwide.

The basic problem is that since violent crime became epidemic in the U.S. along with the war on drugs in the 1980s, cops have become extremely trigger-happy and the courts have generally deferred to their discretion. The basic idea is that the burden is on suspects to show their peaceful intent. I know some people who work in healthcare who treat people shot up by cops all the time, because the cops misinterpreted some careless (but innocent) motion.

Try reading cases like Lyons v. Los Angeles (1983) sometime to get an idea of the problem.

--Coolcaesar 00:41, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just saw an article in the L.A. Times last week about the problem of Los Angeles sheriff's deputies becoming too trigger-happy. Five incidents in two years where they fired anywhere from 50 to 120 bullets at a single suspect in a matter of seconds. The incident with 120 bullets fired in 2004 was particularly egregious since the suspect was unarmed. --Coolcaesar 08:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Term "sworn"

Can someone provide a definition of "swon" and "un-sworn" in reference to different categories of police personnel? Thanks ~ Dpr 08:32, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) Sworn officers are those who have gone through the police academy training and than take an oath to uphold the law. Unsworn or more usually "civilian" employees undertake other police jobs like dispatch, maintenance, secretarial duties and are not trained in policing or working under oath. Rmhermen 02:25, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe generally true today, but sworn in strictly means you have been granted government authority. Untrained specials could be sworn in temporarily during a crisis when the regular police were inadequate, the same as deputizing a posse in American westerns. Bobanny 19:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wage/Salary?

Shouldn't this article include average salaries for policemen? I think that's the kind of information most people would look for when they search for this article... --Berserk798 21:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The salary for police officers does not only vary between departments, but it also varies between countries and continents. It depends on your rank, how long you have been with the force, your level of education prior to joining the force, and what your exact task is within the force itself (highway patrol, traffic, detective work, etc) This information would result in an article as long as (or longer) than the height of your body. However, if you're talking about the average salary for a regular patrol officer currently serving in the U.S or Canada, his salary would be about 60,000 to 76,000 depending, again, on many factors and variables. -- Squadcar56 19:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

entry in rural east georgia is 22,500

Is the ATF considered police?

Are they?Dudtz 10/7/05 6:17 PM EST

Depends upon what you mean as police. If by police, you mean the broad legal definition where it refers to any law enforcement officer, then yes. But if you mean the general casual sense where police means a local law enforcement officer, who handles all kinds of stuff from speeding to homicides, then no. --Coolcaesar 05:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cop lingo

I deleted this section:

A number of colorful slang terms have found themselves into the terminology commonly used by police officers. Some examples are:

BCI: Bureau of Criminal Information (fingerprint and criminal records section)
CCRB: Civilian Complaint Review Board
CSI: Crime Scene Investigation
CSU: Crime Scene Unit
DOA: Dead on arrival
DRT: Dead Right There
DWI: Driving while intoxicated (a.k.a. "Dee Wee")
DT: slang for detective
EDP : Emotionally disturbed person
EMS: Emergency Medical Services
ESU: Emergency Services Unit
FAT: Fugitive Apprehension Team
Five-O: Slang for police (derived from TV police drama Hawaii Five-O)
Flying: as in "fly the coup" to work in another precinct or assignment
Go down: "You're going down" (being arrested)
Gun run: Going in search of a gun used in a crime
Hit: To assault or raid a known criminal location
IAB: Internal Affairs Bureau ("cops who investigate cops")
Lawyering up: A suspect shuts up and requests a lawyer
Lou/Loo: slang for lieutenant
MOS: Member of the Service, a radio code word identifying a police officer
OC: Organized crime
Package/VIP: Escorted prisoner, as in "delivering a package" to a destination
Paying the rent: Doing grunt work like issuing traffic summonses or tickets
Perp: Perpetrator of a crime (also "Mope" or "Mutt")
Puzzle Palace: Slang for main police headquarters
Rabbi: A reliable, trustworthy person in the work environment, who one can go to for advice
Rat Squad: Officers and detectives who work for IAB
Red Menace: Nickname for members of the fire department (a.k.a. "Rubbermen")
Rip: Pay reduction, resulting from a disciplinary action
RMP: Radio Mobile Patrol
Skel: short for "skeleton", refers to drug users, junkies, or homeless vagrants. Possibly short for
- "skellum", meaning thief or street beggar
- skeleton key
SNAG: Special Narcotics and Guns Unit
SNEU: Special Narcotics Enforcement Unit
SOD: Special Operations Division
TARU: Technical and Research Unit/Technical Assistance Response Unit
Tunnel Rats: Transit police officers (usually work in subways)
White Shirts: Senior officers (sergeant and above) who wear white police uniform shirts

These are almost exclusively US terms. If people want to add these then a new article should be created specifically about US police. -- Necrothesp 16:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, anything else that's leaning towards policing in the US should be removed. --Squadcar56 20:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Are riots against interracial police violence "routine" in the US?

I take umbrage with the following statement in the "Difficult issues" section:

Police forces also find themselves under criticism for their use of force, particularly deadly force when a police officer of one race kills a suspect of another race. In the United States, such events routinely spark protests and accusations of racism against police.

Is it a matter of routine that protests occur? There are many nonprovocative instances in which there is little question that the use of force (deadly or otherwise) by police against members of a different race than the responding officers is justified. It would be accurate to say that these "often" spark protests and accusations. "Routinely" may represent a non-neutral POV.

DrBlintz 07:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it depends upon which city you are talking about. Certainly, in volatile and severely segregated cities like Los Angeles, protests and accusations are routine whenever a police officer shoots someone of another race for any reason (valid or not). But such responses are not as common (or at least not as heavily publicized) in most other American cities. I don't know who put that paragraph in, but I agree that it should be modified.--Coolcaesar 22:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So much of the "difficult issues" section is WAY over-stated. Serpico and death threats arounbd every corner. 34 years policing Dayton, Ohio (currently one of the top-10 crime rates in US) and NEVER encountered the "code of silence". If you want to leave this kind of crap in the "encyclopedia", it's to Wiki's detriment.

Pretty pictures and more

The articles nl:Politie in Nederland and de:Polizei contain lots of pretty pictures and information. Shinobu 15:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vice (disambiguation)

What about vice squads? I looked at the disambig page and didn't see it there. I couldn't find it here either. I was trying to link it from Sex Slaves which I just created. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed claim

I've just temporarily removed the following paragraph: The oldest police department in the United States is the Virginia Capitol Police Department, headquartered in Richmond, Virginia. It was established in 1618 at Jamestown, Virginia to protect the Colonial Governor and Assembly from Indian attack. The Virginia Capitol Police, while tracing its origins back to 1618, was effectively dissolved in times it was still being called the Virginia Public Guard. It was disbanded in 1869 and reconstituted again in 1884. Thus the assertion of being the oldest "police department", should be debated at the proper article's Talk page before re-adding said paragraph at this article. Reference: Virginia Historical Society. - Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} 02:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchist perspective

Is there some reason this section is at the top of the page? I mean right under Function in Society, we have the "Anarchist perspective"? On top of being way too prominent, this section seems to describe more of a socialist perspective than an anarchist perspective to me. "the threat to citizens' safety almost always originates from class inequality or the psychological effects of hierarchy, and that these crimes would not exist in a classless, anarchist society, since (theoretically), everyone would have access to everything they want and need, including a non-hierarchical community." Can we move this to the "Socialist" page?

Maybe we should move the "Function in societ" further down so that it's less prominent, or something. It's not really broadly "socialist" because the revolutionary/anarchist analysis is the only socialist analysis of police that suggests they're fundamentally destructive and should be removed from society. BUT, maybe there should be more sub-sections to this? Anarchism is the only philosophy that I know of that has an overt discussion of the police's purpose in society that differentiates from the rest of political theory, all of which affirms the police's position as fundamentally (or possibly) good. But right, it probably is too prominent - but it definitely does need inclusion or at least mention here, since it's a markedly different perspective on the discussion of police. At least, I think so. Word up. Zanturaeon 06:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yo. So I gave it some thought for a little bit and came back and made some more changes to my additions. I removed the ===Anarchist perspective=== tag n' integrated that section into the main part of "function in society". Then I modified the text to represent the broad socialist perspective and the specifically anarchist analysis in proportion to the ammount of difference from the traditional view, and I also modified and moved the paragraph about charges of bigotry to the "Difficult issues" section, removing mention of socialism & anarchism excepting the opening sentence which mentions that the view of police as enforcing bigotry as being prominent among leftists. E'rybody look over and tell me what you think. I think this is much better. Word. Zanturaeon 22:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. The current form of the article, with the section "Difficult issues", is I think much more attractive and substantially more NPOV than earlier edits that I had introduced. I'd also like to apologize for my edits, which I think were blatantly and unnecessarily POV. Cheerio. Zanturaeon 00:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

How do people here feel about merging Police with Police officer? --Generalcp702 00:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. We could probably port the whole article directly into this one without making much changes, n' redirect officer to this main police article. So yeah. Zanturaeon 06:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that is a good idea. Soldier and Army are not merged for example. The article itself is already long enough as it is. Besides merging it to an article that is significantly larger will discourage people from adding info by decreasing independant visibility. Only when the two articles start reiterating each other should they be merged. Angrynight 02:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, yes that's true. So perhaps we should work to expand Police officer, then? It is rather lacking. We could talk about what it's like to be a cop in diff. countries and times, and cops in pop. culture and stuff. ... In fact, there might even be some material we could move from here to police officer and have the articles refer to each other. Whadya think? Zanturaeon 06:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I'm moving "notable police personalities" and "police officers better known in other walks of life" to officer. Generalcp702 11:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Angrynight- do not merge. Generalcp702's change is a step in the right direction toward differentiating the two articles. Can we remove the merge tag yet?QuixoticKate 14:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Anthony Appleyard went ahead and merged the articles and redirected Police Officer to this page. I'm confused by this, and think it was a bad change (as discussed above). I must admit I'm not very active here, and I know that Wikipedia is not a democracy but is this standard operating procedure, given that the consensus was leaning toward not merging the articles? I'm certainly not going to just revert this, and Appleyard seems like a very active and probably knowledgeable user, but I thought that Angrynight's point re: Soldier and Army was dead on (in fact, I think that argument is even stronger here). QuixoticKate 15:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone the merge. This page is already long enough and there's a lot that can be said about police officers. 24.127.224.173 18:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Police officer

Many comments on this page are about police officers but there is a separate article for that. Generalcp702 23:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but without the police officers there would be no police force. Police officers make up the majority of any police force, therefore they must be mentioned numerous times within this article. However, some tweaking can be done to make the presence of the 'police officer' less noticable. -- Squadcar56 21:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of section

Just dropping a line here that I reverted the article a couple edits back because someone 132.239.167.253 anonymously and without explanation deleted a section I had added. Also the edits made since then were just vandalism/fixes of vandalism, anyways. Word up. Zanturaeon 17:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth paragraph in "Function in Society", the one having derived from the aforementioned section, had again recently been deleted by user:JsinGood (at 10:22 April 6 2006); so I've again restored it, as there was no given or apparent reason and it apparently was vandalism. I didn't revert it as I had reverted before because the edit after his/hers was a useful link to the Commons' police material. Word up homies. Zanturaeon 04:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

India and "Jeeps"

From the article: "...the various state police forces in India extensively use the Jeep as their main mode of transport."

This is ambiguous as the link goes to the article on the Willys-Overland Jeep brand now owned by Daimler-Chrysler. I'm not sure Indian police typically use Jeeps, although they might use "jeeps" of some sort, SUVs, or other 4x4s. Can someone clarify this? 24.155.88.186 17:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fallacy in the following line: "most crimes originate from class inequality or the psychological effects of this as well as hierarchy, and therefore that these crimes would not exist in a classless and non-hierarchical society, where goods are evenly distributed and hierarchy has been removed." A causes some B, Therefore, if you remove A all B will cease.

heading: Line of duty deaths

I was wondering is this encyclopedic in itself and is anyone prepared to keep it updated? And also maybe balance it with some information from jurisdictions other than N. America and the UK. It might also benefit from being surrounded by some context (some of this already in the article), eg the arming of police, public expectation of police role or similar. Anyway I'm not sure of the value of these figures by themselves. Also 'line of duty' is a phrase with cultural resonance in the U.S. / N. America but not necessarily elsewhere. -- Hakluyt bean

It would be very difficult to keep this section updated. -- Squadcar56 21:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Nicknames for the Old Bill, Coppers, Cops, Les Flics etc.

Or even the one entered by user 24.210.64.218 which I've deleted. Among his/her past achievements a contribution to the wiki article on poop. He/she raises an interesting point though. Should we not have some mention of this? Nicknames I mean. Contrary to a comment earlier I can't see a section on 'Police Officer' which may be the place for it. I also can't find Cops or Coppers? I mean I don't need one right away but... :)-- Hakluyt bean 23:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can give you a few Dutch nicks: "smeris" (pl. "smerissen"), "juut" (pl. "juten"), "flik" (pl. "flikken"), "klabak" (pl. "klabakken"), "prinsemarij" (the police), "witte muizen" (highway police), "luis" (Leiden, pl. "luizen"), "ballenjatter" (The Hague, pl. "ballenjatters"), "bromsnor" (pl. "bromsnorren", from a TV-series(?)), "dof gajes" (plainclothesmen, more at [1]), there are probably more... Shinobu 12:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And as someone pointed out, there's always the Bobby. Shinobu 08:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved Vehicle Data

I migrated the prolix info about Irish police vehicles to the Garda Síochána article; I don't think it belongs in an article about police and policing in general.

Patrol cars are mainly white, with two small blue strips and one large luminous green strip running down the centre. The Garda crest is also on the patrol cars. Garda patrol cars are identical to civilian vehicles and feature no engine or performance improvements, however higher performance cars are normally bought, ie Ford Mondeo 2.5 V6

--Ori.livneh 10:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Departments

The line that 'A police department is the organisation or commission that is made up of police officers.' is US-centric, as police organisations can also be police forces, police services, gendarmeries, constabularies and various other names. It should be removed. MickBarnes 10:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand Police

There's nothing about it. Mdoc7 04:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a stub at nl:Politie in Thailand. It's also likely that the Thai wiki has something. Unfortunately I don't speak Thai. Shinobu 03:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Singapore police officers killed in the line of duty

There needs to be similar articles for other countries. Chris 23:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC) http://www.odmp.org/year.php[reply]

Dutch police

I just translated the article Dutch police because I wanted to put a link to it somewhere; it took longer than I thought it would.

Perhaps someone could have a fresh look at it? Never mind the redlinks, just check whether the article is clear for non-Dutch audiences. Shinobu 03:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patrol car images

Some of the sections in the list of Police forces by country have an image of a patrol car or something similar, while some don't. For some of the ones that don't a suitable image is available. Would it be nice to add these? Shinobu 20:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are too many police car photos. One (or maybe two) is enough. The rest can go in the relevant subarticles. This many police cars gives the impression that all police do is ride around in their cars, and don't interact with citizens. That's less the case nowadays. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 21:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're right, it's a bit one-sided. On the other hand, images light a page up a bit. I think the page still contains a lot of proza that may be a worthwhile read, but that would look a bit less daunting with an image. The reason patrol cars were used in the list of countries section is probably that they're recognizable. But we could easily use other pictures, I guess. (Motor)bikes? An officer? A copter? I like the Segway :-) Shinobu 13:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed para

Within the United States and other modern countries, dislike for the police force has led to a common stererotype of officers of the law as slothful, doughnut-devouring pigs. Although the term was popularized during the 1960s by political protestors who frequently found themselves at odds with the law, the origins date back further. Criminals have used the term for many years, and as far back as an 1811 reference in OED to a pig from the Bow Street Runners, an early police force. The term actually dates back to the 16th century, during which the word "pig" or "swine" was used to someone who was thoroughly disliked. In modern times, pig has become such a common idiom that a Google search reveals more than 7 million hits.

Needs proper sourcing, and I dislike the reference to Google as if it were an almighty truth-revealing entity. "The term" is not defined before usage, similary "OED". Perhaps more useful at police officer. Shinobu 00:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

French police

Surprised that there is no listing for French police in the list of countries. Could somebody add please? (Ajkgordon 08:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Is "lietenant generals" (cf. "vice presidents") a correct plural, or should it be "lieutenants general" (cf. "secretaries general")? (User:Shulgi 18 December 2006, 17:45 (UTC)

Bobbies can still be found...

"Bobbies can still be found in many parts of the world..." What on earth is this intended to mean? (The word "Bobbies"?, the style of uniform?)

Arrest

Info regarding monopoly should be qualified to provide for "citizen arrest." --Daniel C. Boyer 20:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Citizen arrests" have very little to do with police themselves, and they only act as a danger to any civilian idiotic enough to risk one. It has no place in an article about police. Squadcar56 21:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, that depends... I don't know anything about American law, but according to Dutch law you can detain someone until the Police arrives, which makes it related.

@"a danger to any civilian idiotic enough to risk one": and anyone joining the Police is obviously an idiot too by the same standard. You shouldn't bash people doing the right thing. Anyway, citizen arrest is mainly invented for things like shoplifting, burglary and similar offences. In those cases the risk is small compared to the expected return (i.e. the perpetrator being brought to justice). Shinobu 13:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three philosophies of policing?

I don't have references for this I'm afraid, but have long understood that there are different policing models according as to whether the police are see as primarily an arm of the legislature, judiciary, or executive. I wonder if taking this into account would help clarify some of the discussion.

In the US, 'We the people' makes the legislature the embodiment of the 'General Will' - police there are creatures of the legislature, and so 'law enforcement officers', hence armed.

In the UK, the unfinished nature of the English and Glorious Revolutions has meant that while civil rights are well and long-established, only the House of Commons could convincingly claim to represent 'we the people' - hence policing has to be by consent, hence police officers cannot be armed (if they were generally so armed, they'd turn into law enforcement officers). This is why police uniforms are blue - to get as far away from any suggestion that the police were anything to do with the 'Redcoats' (the standard uniform of the British Army in 18th/19th centuries), and so not a standing army in disguise. Their primary role is to keep the Queen's peace, not to enforce the law. Historically parish constables reported to the local magistrate. Thus British police are creatures of the judiciary.

In Europe, police forces are typically creatures of the executive, and often under military control - the Guardia Civil in Spain and Gendarmerie in France are examples of this (I don't know where you'd put US State Troopers in this classification). It is only under this model that you can have a secret police, which is is not the same as covert police surveillance, of course. That can go on under any model. But Gestapo, for example was not slang. It stood for its official title GEheimeSTaatsPOlizei - secret state police. The function of secret police is to enforce government policy, usually through fear and state terror.

If I'm talking rubbish, please don't bite me!

Paulredfern1 11:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No this doesn't make much sense. For one thing U.S. police are under the executive branch (federally and in most states) - except for the very small Capitol Police which guard that building. Rmhermen 04:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The British Police seems to be a law enforcement agency just like any other police force.

Having a police force under military control is not a requirement for conducting shady business (see CIA, NSA, certain FBI operations).

Most European police forces fall under the executive branch and/or the judiciary. In the Netherlands e.g. the Police and the OM fall under both: under the Judiciary for investigation and under the Ministries of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of Justice for most other duties. See Dutch Police.

As for gendarmeries, they may be a military body, but that has nothing to do with the branch of government they work for. The Dutch Koninklijke Marechaussee performs duties for all three branches.

(replied before having read response below) Shinobu 13:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK - the problem I have is trying to explain to US visitors to UK why the British police aren't armed and US police generally are. I do remember reading a story years ago about (I believe) a Minnesota police chief who tried to shift over to the British model of policing (He failed - due to opposition from within his force), and that article was used as a tag to explain the different philosophies of policing in the two countries.

I guess what I am trying to get at is that 'We the people' would explain why it is acceptable for US police officers to be armed; because 'We the people' means that policing in the US is implicitly always 'by consent', and so policing there is seen primarily as a question of law enforcement (with the emphasis on 'enforcement'). In the UK, where technically there are no citizens (of the UK), but merely subjects of Her Majesty (though, bizarrely, all are citizens of the EU), 'consent', of the policed to their policing, must explicitly be sought after; and this means not arming the police, who would otherwise simply be able to enforce their will. Surveys of serving British police, incidentally, show general support for remaining unarmed.

Secondly, countries with a common-law tradition do not generally have secret police forces (as defined previously), whether this is because of the common-law tradition itself, or the historic lack of need for a standing army, I couldn't say. But why this should be is worthy of interest, and maybe should be included in an article on police.

To take a related topic as an example, the doctrine of the separation of the powers means very different things in the US and in France. In the US, of course, it means a judiciary independent of and equal to the legislature and executive. In France, it means that legislators should legislate and judges should judge - judges should be the mouthpieces of the legislature. The debates over whether the Supreme Court should or should not be involved in making social policy (abortion, bussing, segregation etc), simply could not happen in France. Judicial decisions do not make law in France but are simply exercises in showing how the civil code is applicable to the case in question. Similarly I am suggesting that the relation of the police to a) those they police, and b) to those on behalf of whom they exercise their policing roles may not always be the same in different jurisdictions.

So I take Rmhermen's point, and not wishing to turn what should be a forum on which to raise points of information or points of order into a bulletin board, will withdraw from the debate. As a departing comment however, I do maintain that the topic would be better served by a systemic consideration of the relation of the police to 1) those to whom they report and 2) to those they police, and how these relations (may or may not) differ in different parts of the world, or under different legal systems. I agree that the way I tried to develop the point was not very articulate, but I do believe that there are differences and that these are likely to be systemic (underpinned by different philosophies of policing). --Paulredfern1 13:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Uniforms and equipment of the British police - the difference is a historical one. Note that some British police forces are issues firearms as a matter of course, as are a lot of continental forces. Note also that trying to set up an American unarmed or lightly armed police force will raise severe objections from whithin the force - this has probably everything to do with the USA's lack of gun control. If every citizen could have a gun, you simply need one to perform your duties as an officer of the law. Shinobu 13:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The armed/unarmed difference is historical, and has to do with the state's relationship to society, so in the US, guns are so 'the people' can protect themselves from encroachments of the state, whereas Bobbies were unarmed essentially so that the state could extend itself deeper into society in a way that was palatable to the citizens. It was felt an alternative was needed to bringing in the military to quell unrest, partly because something more effective was needed and because the military was pretty over-extended in the early decades of the 19th century with the expanding empire and all. Policing in the US was strictly a local thing until the mid-1930s, when the FBI went national. Before that, the Post Office was the only federal agency with a truly national reach. The thinking behind the different approaches seem to be more about national prejudices than philosophy, so the idea of different models seems problematic to me. The English model was in many ways set against the French, so the London Police was designed to at least appear the antithesis to the gendarmerie in France. In the US, the oppressive British Empire they revolted against was the bogey their police were set against, which ironically led to the Pinkerton's model of private policing that didn't exactly nurture liberty. The best comparison I've seen if anyone's interested, is Wilbur R. Miller, "Cops and Bobbies," a journal article that has been expanded into a book. Don't know if this helps, but these are some issues I've been trying to wrap my head around lately. Bobanny 19:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I know I said I wouldn't bother you any more with this, and this is positively my last appearance. To Shinobu, as a point of information, I would point out that gun control wasn't properly introduced into UK until after WW1 (Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#History_of_gun_control_in_the_United_Kingdom). You may recall that the amateur detectives, Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson, regularly went out 'packing heat'! If every citizen is potentially armed, the need for unarmed police to ensure consent would be all the greater. And secondly, very few police, principally Diplomatic Protection officers, and SO19, the people responsible for the Menezes shooting (Jean_Charles_de_Menezes), are issued arms as a matter of course. Even then however, officers can only use those arms on the orders of a senior officer, I think superintendent (4 or 5 ranks above 'constable'), or above, though I happily stand to be corrected on this. London squad cars that do contain firearms are distinctively red, rather than the normal white, in colour, the arms are locked in the trunk and again can only be broken out on the order of a senior officer.
To Bobanny, I agree completely that the armed/unarmed difference is historical, and has to do with the state's relation to society. I think our only point of difference is on where 'national prejudices' end, and 'competing philosophies' begins! As to different models, I should have made clear that I doubt whether any police chief/justice ministry has ever sat down and said: "OK, we are going to follow xyz model of policing, when we set up our police force". The 'model' I had in mind was more of an analysts/analytical construct, than an operational model. I apologise for the lack of clarity. Your comments on how the English model was set against the French and the US against the British were exactly the kinds of ideas I was trying to air for consideration on how this topic might be improved. My work here is evidently done. I shall take up your reference to the Miller book with interest.
Evenin' all - and let's be careful out there!
--Paulredfern1 11:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't feel obliged to respond if you're moving on to greener (less blue?) pastures, but I would like to begin reworking this article once I muster the courage and the time, and agree that these big issues need to be teased out more. The different 'models', like applied political theory generally, aren't a good representation of reality for many reasons, but unavoidable in thinking about policing in a global way, which this article should reflect. I'm starting to think a separate article for "law enforcement" might be the way to go, so that the "operational" and "analytical/philosophical" aspects of policing can be dealt with adequately without having a massive, convoluted article that covers it all. And maybe another one dedicated to the history of "police" in it's very broad sense. I'm not fond of the current country snippets that collectively don't do much for the general subject. I do disagree with your definition of Secret police, but that's another messy article and discussion. Bobanny 14:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must correct some misconceptions in the above paragraph about the British police. Diplomatic Protection Officers and SO19 (now actually called CO19) are two specialist units of the Metropolitan Police which polices Greater London. Officers of these specialist units are armed (CO19 is there to support its unarmed colleagues with incidents involving firearms). Other armed specialist units within this particular force would include Royalty Protection and certain officers in Special Branch but there are others. A more accurate picture would be to look nationally, as nearly all police forces in the UK has an armed element. I recall being told that less than ten percent of the 120,000 officers in the country are rountinely armed.

Your understanding of when an officer can use a firearm is quite frankly wrong. A police constable carrying a firearm can self authorise the use of his weapon if he comes across an incident. (For example, on patrol an armed officer comes across an armed robbery in progress - the officer can use his weapon and fire if needed to protect life etc, without having to first get authority - he can self authorise). The Superintendents authority is required for pre-planned armed operations, such as an armed entry whilst executing a search warrant. The red cars mentioned above only designate that the vehicle is part of the Diplomatic Protection Group (a specialist unit of the Metropolitan Police) and has nothing to do with being armed. Most armed officers drive around in vehicles that are identical in livery to any other police vehicle. For information your comments re 'the weapons being locked in the trunk and can only be broken out after authorisation of a senior officer' is also wrong. The officers have the weapons holstered on their person and do not require authority to get weapons out of the vehicle. Dibble999 12:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Posting the links here, so I don't forget them:

Shinobu 14:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Haha. But you don't really get it anyway. You think cop are 'honest' right-wing people ? Actually communism and the police are the same thing.200.127.113.23 (talk)

The police seek an end to capitalism and the systems which they perceived to be responsible for the exploitation of workers? --JeffJ (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP was referring to Marx's analysis of the police as instruments of the ruling classes being used to enforce the interests of capitalism and the status quo. However, I don't believe that'd be of much use in this article, and it's more a functional and historical description. --Rodhull andemu 17:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OP here, and i do mean that. playing the devil's advocate now, shouldn't a functional and historical description of the police be on the police page? why not?

In simple terms, yes. And it helps if you insert your comments after those of others rather than in the middle of their sigs. --Rodhull andemu 13:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

Outside north America, it is called policing. Law-enforcement is a north American term. Mesoso 00:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

A rewrite of Law enforcement agency has been done whihc might help here. Pee Tern (talk) 05:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Very few British Police are armed, I dont know where you got the information that they are. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

okay...so it is back now. im not sure what happened...w/e --T Van Wormer 23:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

So it's basically a rollback. The Last Melon 06:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I went ahead and changed it, closer to your original suggestion. bobanny 20:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

FBI as "law enforcement agency" - no need for italics

fixed.bobanny 01:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

"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.

History

1.1

"other duties....was" -> "other duties....were"

fixed. bobanny 01:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Break between Greek & Roman to make separation a bit more clear

fixed. bobanny 01:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"Anglo-Saxon" - should this be Wikilinked?

done. bobanny 01:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

Delamare - edition referenced is 1722

fixed, I think. bobanny 01:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

"defined police as the task.." -> "defined policing as the task..."

fixed. bobanny 01:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"This office was held by Gabriel Nicolas de la Reynie" -> "first held by", otherwise when?

fixed. bobanny 01:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

"cities or towns" or -> and

done. bobanny 01:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"Paris and all French cities" - redundant?

fixed.bobanny 04:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

"The act established" -> "The Act established"

fixed.bobanny 04:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"and inspectors general" -> "and inspectors-general"

don't think so. See:Inspector General.bobanny 04:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

"British Empire (Commonwealth) Bobbies" - Wikilink & "Empire (now Commonwealth)".

done. bobanny 04:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"The London Metropolitan police's SO19" - now been renamed to CO19, and this link needs piping.

fixed.bobanny 04:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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? Avruch ^Talk 19:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

World Police Indoor Soccer Tournament

Wil anybody be so nice to mention this link in this article? My English isn't good enough to dare to change an important article. Greetings from NL, Geus (talk) 00:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hoi! I doubt this would belong in this article because it is more about their history and the job they do than things they do in their spare time. There may be a better place for it, but I can't think of one right now. --Rodhull andemu 00:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: IP information in the lead

Police, Mad, Jack's profile makes it quite clear that he is not an unbiased editor. He recently undid an extremely relevant revision featuring a consensus among great thinkers like John Locke, Adam Smith, James Madison & John Jay. He has so far refused to offer a reasonable explanation. Unless he does so--convincingly-- he should stop such behavior. Here's the revision:

Police are agents or agencies, usually of the executive, empowered to enforce the law and to effect public and social order through the legitimatized use of force. The term is most commonly associated with police departments of a state that are authorized to exercise the police power of that state within a defined legal or territorial area of responsibility. The word comes via French from the Latin politia (“civil administration”), which itself derives from the Ancient Greek πόλις, for polis ("city").[1] The first police force comparable to present-day police was established in 1667 under King Louis XIV in France, although modern police usually trace their origins to the 1800 establishment of the Marine Police in London, the Glasgow Police, and the Napoleonic police of Paris.[2][3][4] The first modern police force is also commonly said to be the London Metropolitan Police, established in 1829, which promoted the preventive role of police as a deterrent to urban crime and disorder.[5] Law enforcement however has only ever constituted a small portion of policing activity.[6] Policing has included an array of activities in different contexts, but the predominant ones are concerned with the preservation of order and the provision of services.[7] These are mostly related to the maintenance of an institutional order of governmental rules and prerogatives, as described by John Locke in 1690, who wrote that "[t]he great and chief end...of men's uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property"[8] Similarly, Adam Smith described how "...as the necessity of civil government gradually grows up with the acquisition of valuable property, so the principal causes which naturally introduce subordination gradually grow up with the growth of that valuable property... Wherever there is great property there is great inequality. For one very rich man there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many. The affluence of the rich excites the indignation of the poor, who are often both driven by want, and prompted by envy, to invade his possessions...The appropriation of herds and flocks which introduced an inequality of fortune was that which first gave rise to regular government. Till there be property there can be no government, the very end of which is to secure wealth, and to defend the rich from the poor"[9] This close link between property and government (and thus police function) was also noted by John Jay (who repeatedly said that "Those who own the country ought to govern it,")[10]and by US Founding Father James Madison, who declared that government "...ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority."[11] Given that the crimes of governments and associated elite institutions have historically been greater than those of the "smaller" criminals they prosecuted, and that such institutional influence has been perceived, by some groups, as a promoter of violence, alienation and socioeconomic disparity which gives rise to crime, the institutional role of police has been criticized.[12] Alternative names for police force include constabulary, gendarmerie, police department, police service, crime prevention, protective services, law enforcement agency Garda Síochána, and members can be police officers, troopers, sheriffs, constables, rangers, peace officers or Garda. Russian police and police of the Soviet-era Eastern Europe are (or were) called militsiya. 99.2.224.110 (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia guidelines state that the lead introduction should be short, not lots of information it it. This is the rules. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lead introduction, apart from being extremely relevant is not long at all--just one thick paragraph.99.2.224.110 (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I've protected this page from any editing due to this unseemly edit war, and to protect you both from breaching WP:3RR. I suggest you take it to dispute resolution if you can't sort it out yourselves, specifically getting a third opinion. The manual of style is quite clear on what should be in the lead, however. --Rodhull andemu 17:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its still in breach of rules, Wikipedia states that the lead should be short and to the point. Your edits are a mess, with manual of style troubles and other things. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no breach, though it may be true that the extremely relevant information that was added to the lead could be condensed. Let me know what you think of something like this:

Police are agents or agencies, usually of the executive, empowered to enforce the law and to effect public and social order through the legitimatized use of force. The term is most commonly associated with police departments of a state that are authorized to exercise the police power of that state within a defined legal or territorial area of responsibility. The word comes via French from the Latin politia (“civil administration”), which itself derives from the Ancient Greek πόλις, for polis ("city").[1] The first police force comparable to present-day police was established in 1667 under King Louis XIV in France, although modern police usually trace their origins to the 1800 establishment of the Marine Police in London, the Glasgow Police, and the Napoleonic police of Paris.[2][3][4] The first modern police force is also commonly said to be the London Metropolitan Police, established in 1829, which promoted the preventive role of police as a deterrent to urban crime and disorder.[5] Law enforcement however has only ever constituted a small portion of policing activity.[6] Policing has included an array of activities in different contexts, but the predominant ones are concerned with the preservation of order and the provision of services.[7] These are mostly related to the maintenance of an institutional order of governmental rules and prerogatives, as described by John Locke, Adam Smith, John Jay and James Madison, who described how government developed and functions primarily "to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority" [8] Given that the crimes of governments and associated elite institutions have historically been greater than those of the "smaller" criminals they prosecuted, and that such institutional influence has been perceived, by some groups, as a promoter of violence, alienation and socioeconomic disparity which gives rise to crime, the institutional role of police has been criticized.[9] Alternative names for police force include constabulary, gendarmerie, police department, police service, crime prevention, protective services, law enforcement agency Garda Síochána, and members can be police officers, troopers, sheriffs, constables, rangers, peace officers or Garda. Russian police and police of the Soviet-era Eastern Europe are (or were) called militsiya. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.2.224.110 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 12 September 2008
Not good enough, the article does not need a political edge to it. It will not be featured, like it or not. As soon as the protection is off, it comes off. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, there is no "political edge". It is YOU who is giving the article a "political edge" by deleting information about the (uncontroversial) institutional function of the police and government as described by great thinkers like John Locke, Adam Smith, James Madison and John Jay. I tried to accommodate your demands when you said that the lead was too long. In contrast, you have refused to yield one inch and seem bent on continuing an editing war. Notice, by the way, you just CONCEDED that you were lying when you said that the reason why you took it off was because it was too long. You simply dislike the "political" implications of historically confirmed facts. In other words, you want to lie by omission by ignoring such facts. 99.2.224.110 (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I was lying, but if I was, what are you going to do about it? I am allowed to if the mood takes me, please do not talk to me like I am below you. Because let me tell you now, I'm not, and you remember that. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea and a muffin might help here since good faith seems to have been replaced by ad hominems. I remind you that disruptive editing is not limited to edit-warring and is equally blockable. --Rodhull andemu 18:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was not a personal attack. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just dont like being talked to in a manner which is like "YOU did this" etc, that is just a wish of any personal who would like respect. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking to both of you; the rule is to comment on content, not editors. Some chilling on both sides might be useful, and you both have other options. --Rodhull andemu 18:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what I think is wrong with it:

1) It is too large for the lead. 2) It needs more reliable references. 3) It brings a political agenda into the article, which is not desired. 4) It has manual of style difficulties. 5) Most of it is not important. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at his complaints one by one: 1) I've offered to shorten the section, (e.g. as shown above) and he says it's "not good enough" 2) The references are to absolutely impeccable sources citing the works and texts of John Locke, Adam Smith, John Jay and James Madison 3) Information about the (uncontroversial) institutional function of the police and government as described by great thinkers like John Locke, Adam Smith, James Madison and John Jay does not carry a "political agenda". Ignoring them DOES. 4) He has so far been unwilling to specify where concretely such "difficulties" are and propose some solution that will not compromise the relevant content. 5) The primary institutional role of the police is not important? I am glad, however, that Police,Mad,Jack's has attempted to articulate a cogent answer, because his previous psychological projection and threats will not help solve the dispute. Given that we now understand the real reason why he keeps deleting it and refusing to compromise even to a shorter version, he has to explain why John Locke, Adam Smith, John Jay and James Madison are wrong and he is right. If he can do that convincingly, this dispute will end and I will graciously accept that he was right all along. 99.2.224.110 (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It will never end, the information should not be published. I gave you a reason all along. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 19:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And if it does, no way is it going in the lead. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 19:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, do not insert text directly from the book. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 19:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

section break

Since it seems neither of you is willing to go to WP:3O, and I can't do it for you, I have raised this issue on the talk pages of the Law and Law Enforcement projects. Meanwhile, please stop taking it personally and deal with the content. FYI, extracts from a book, if attributed, are fair-use and can be used here. --Rodhull andemu 19:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

aving a glance at it suggests it is too focused and length/detailed a segement to go in the lead, and if it is going to be included it ought to go in a section of the article itself. There is a discussion at WT:LE, which Rodhullandemu mentions above. SGGH ^speak! 14:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on content conflict from uninvolved editor

Without regard to the substance, as a matter of Wikistyle, the introduction is TOO LONG. Too long introductions crappify good articles.

Now, as to the substance, the intro contains a LENGTHY discussion of THEORY, particularly quotations from Locke and Madison. This stuff is INTERESTING and TOPICAL. There is nothing wrong with it being in the article. But it should be MOVED to preserve the stylstic integrity and readability of the article. This philosophical discussion breaks up the basic information the introduction was attempting to convey. This is a bad idea.

Suggestion: Take all theoretical discussion from "policing" (line 10) to "criticized" and MOVE it to a NEW SECTION or SUBSECTION within the article, titled something like, "theory of policing" or "philosophical views on the role of police forces." This could go in the existing CONDUCT section or become a new subsection thereafter. Pursuant to the "inverted triangle" rule of writing however, it belongs near the bottom, not to the top. Gentlemen, this is NOT a big deal. Please work it out. Come together. Let's find a consensus. Non Curat Lex (talk) 11:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved member of WP:LE, I wholeheartedly agree. The text - whilst good - is too long and should be moved to another section. ninety:one 13:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Frankly, I think it's irrelevant to the article. The gentlemen quoted were not talking about the police, but about general philosophical principles, so the quotes are effectively being synthesised to promote a particular point of view, which is Original Research and not acceptable on Wikipedia. It's also highly POV and assumes that the gentlemen quoted were correct - a "they said this so it must be true" presentation, which is academically insupportable. So, I agree with PMJ - there is no real place for this section in the article, and in any case certainly not in the intro. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

I took the liberty of posting Necrothesps opinion here, it was originally seen at WP:LE. Put I posted it for ease due to it being about this current convo, hope you dont mind. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 16:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I count as an uninvolved editor here, but since you seem to need someone else to comment I'll do so.

The intro as it stands now is far too long and concentrates way too much on history and philosophy. The intro should give an overview on the function and organisation of the police, not an in-depth discussion of the its philosophy and sociology. The quotes from Locke and Smith should not be in an intro - at very least they should be moved to a separate section. That's true no matter how referenced they are. The sentence "Given that the crimes of governments and associated elite institutions have historically been greater..." cannot possibly stand as NPOV. Any references you find will only prove that some people think that. In anycase it should be moved to something like "alternative theories of policing". DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PMJ: I disagree with Necrothesps's opinion. While it is esoteric and outside of the functional aspect of policing, the philosophical implications of the institution are not irrelevant. Yes, relevance is a judgment call. I've made one. You've made one. They're different. How do you know what to follow? Follow CONSENSUS. There is a growing CONSENSUS that the philosophical blather can STAY as long as it is moved from the intro. Isn't that a good compromise? Non Curat Lex (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with whom you like, does not give you the crown. This needs to be cut down, and not put in the lead and copedited, this is what I strived for in the first instance. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 20:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PMJ: I request that you please mind WP:Civil when you address your fellow editors. I feel you are speaking to me abrasively, and there is no need for that. I am trying to help the situation with this article. And do not forget I am supporting your position on the removal from the lead and the need for copyediting. It sounds like now you are saying you want it removed from the article altogether. Is that true? Non Curat Lex (talk) 22:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved a section

I moved a section here from Police officer since it deals with policing in general. Feel free to edit as necessary. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A totally unsourced section while the article is under protection? Do you think that was wise? --Rodhull andemu 17:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, there was no tag on the article and I misread the edit warning to mean that it was only under semi-protection. Anyway, I'm not endorsing the section - it just didn't belong at Police officer. If other editors think it's wrong or bad feel free to remove entirely. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for dealing with this set out in the section below, but it's starting to get messy. --Rodhull andemu 17:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

The institutional role of government and police has nothing to do with "philosophical principles". It is others who may be imposing their "philosophical principles" by evading information about institutional function as described by great thinkers like John Locke, Adam Smith, James Madison and John Jay; whose consensus description of the role and development of the state, by the way, is NOT simply "opinion", but uncontroversial historical DESCRIPTIONS of the formation and functions of government. I mean, the aforementioned evasive approach is one we would never adopt in analyzing past power structures like monarchy, feudalism, colonialism etc But anyway, I'll make a proposal: What about a new section called "Institutional Role"? e.g. the article could start like this:

Police are agents or agencies, usually of the executive, empowered to enforce the law and to effect public and social order through the legitimatized use of force. The term is most commonly associated with police departments of a state that are authorized to exercise the police power of that state within a defined legal or territorial area of responsibility. The word comes via French from the Latin politia (“civil administration”), which itself derives from the Ancient Greek πόλις, for polis ("city").[1] The first police force comparable to present-day police was established in 1667 under King Louis XIV in France, although modern police usually trace their origins to the 1800 establishment of the Marine Police in London, the Glasgow Police, and the Napoleonic police of Paris.[2][3][4] The first modern police force is also commonly said to be the London Metropolitan Police, established in 1829, which promoted the preventive role of police as a deterrent to urban crime and disorder.[5] Law enforcement however, only constitutes a small portion of policing activity.[6]Policing has included an array of activities in different contexts, but the predominant ones are concerned with the preservation of order and the provision of services[7] primarily within a context of maintaining a certain societal power structure. Alternative names for police force include constabulary, gendarmerie, police department, police service, crime prevention, protective services, law enforcement agency Garda Síochána, and members can be police officers, troopers, sheriffs, constables, rangers, peace officers or Garda. Russian police and police of the Soviet-era Eastern Europe are (or were) called militsiya.

Institutional Role The institutional role of police conforms to the maintenance of an institutional order of governmental rules and prerogatives, as described by John Locke in 1690, who wrote that "[t]he great and chief end...of men's uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property"[8] Similarly, Adam Smith described how "...as the necessity of civil government gradually grows up with the acquisition of valuable property, so the principal causes which naturally introduce subordination gradually grow up with the growth of that valuable property... Wherever there is great property there is great inequality. For one very rich man there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many. The affluence of the rich excites the indignation of the poor, who are often both driven by want, and prompted by envy, to invade his possessions...The appropriation of herds and flocks which introduced an inequality of fortune was that which first gave rise to regular government. Till there be property there can be no government, the very end of which is to secure wealth, and to defend the rich from the poor"[9] This close link between property and government (and thus police function) was also noted by John Jay (who repeatedly said that "Those who own the country ought to govern it,")[10]and by US Founding Father James Madison, who declared that government "...ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority."[11] Given that the crimes of governments and associated elite institutions have historically been greater than those of the "smaller" criminals they prosecuted, and that such institutional influence has been perceived, by some groups, as a promoter of violence, alienation and socioeconomic disparity which gives rise to crime, the institutional role of police has been criticized.[12]

99.2.224.110 (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not wishing to step into the arena here as the protecting admin, but this content, and that just added by User:DJ Clayworth seem to be of a feather and might be more at home in Police power. I leave that open to discussion by interested parties. --Rodhull andemu 17:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That does not seem bad to me. The intro proposed is better than the one we now have. The "Institutional role" seems to suffer from the misapprehension that anything a thinker says about government (in theory) also applies to the police in practice. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, Ifeel that a large chunk of long quotes on the origins of police mentality and role in society has no place in the lead, and would perhaps be best served in some sort of "original inception" section. It still seems the heading of an essay on the roles of police in society rather than an encyclopedic article on police, but perhaps with some trimming and an indication of why this content is a relevance addition rather than a collection of related quotes and OR/Essay material, it can be woven into somewhere other than the lead. SGGH ^speak! 18:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clear up any misunderstanding I was assuming that in the proposal above the text starting Institutional Role was intended to be a separate section, not part of the lead. If it was intended to be part of the lead I oppose it strongly. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ideological Bias

The consensus among thinkers like John Locke, Adam Smith, John Jay and James Madison, that government (thus police) developed and primarily functions to "protect the minority of the opulent against the majority" apart from being uncontroversial among serious historians CANNOT be omitted from the lede anymore than a description of Nazism or Stalinism can omit words like "authoritarian" "dictatorial" or "totalitarian" without veiling or distorting an important aspect of the truth. Now IT IS TRUE that an array of quotes by major figures explaining why nazism or stalinism were totalitarian does not belong in the lede, but the crucial difference that has to be taken into account is that the notion that police function primarily to "protect the minority of the opulent against the majority" is not politically correct and thus, without further explanation, the proposition sounds much more controversial than saying that nazism or stalinism were ""authoritarian" "dictatorial" or "totalitarian". Nevertheless, John Locke, Adam Smith, John Jay and James Madison's explanations offer the same degree of descriptive historical accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.2.224.110 (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Four thinkers do not a consensus make. Their quotes are not about the police and their use in an article about the police constitutes Original Research, which is unacceptable on Wikipedia. The "notion that police function primarily to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority" is highly POV and would be disputed by many. The fact that a few thinkers, however highly regarded, believe to be true it does not make it a fact. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, I think its crunch time now. I think its time below to support the inclusion or not, or sit on the fence.

Strong Oppose - Per mine and editors such as Necrothesp and SGGH comments above. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 21:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose. It's far from clear that these thinkers represent a consensus. Even if it were true there is no evidence to show that their thinking applied to the police. There was government for thousands of years before there was police; in fact police didn't exist in any real sense when Smith was writing, so to say his writing must apply to the police is ridiculous. Even if what they wrote was the consensus when they wrote it there is nothing to indicate that the consensus hasn't changed. Democracy didn't really exist when Smith was writing either. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion that law enforcement agents "didn't exist in any real sense when Smith was writing" is refuted by a quick glance at info websites and standard textbooks and literature e.g. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library/documents/police.htm or http://books.google.com/books?id=PRmhu3M2jv8C&pg=PA515&lpg=PA515&dq=police+american+colonies&source=web&ots=Dxk8AuzQR6&sig=KokKB0NmB0Gs5DWxF3Jl3OhQQcI&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result Follow the second link and notice that on that same page of this standard text on Criminology, even the politically-correct Larry J. Siegel describes how "The modern police department was born out of...the desire of the wealthy to restructure...society." Does ANYONE here doubt that police function is mostly related to the maintenance of an institutional order of governmental rules and prerogatives? I hope not. Therefore, anyone trying to EVADE a description of such rules and prerogatives is introducing ideological bias. Adam Smith, James Madison, John Jay and John Locke's descriptions are not controversial. They are massively supported by facts and scholarship. Unless someone can refute them, they should be included--even if in condensed form--, just as descriptive terms like "totalitarian" "dictatorial" 'authoritarian' etc should be used to describe nazism and stalinism even if there happen to be some people who disagree with them.99.2.224.110 (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do indeed disagree with your POV. I see the function of the police as protecting every member of society against those who would do them harm, not as maintaining an "institutional order of governmental rules and prerogatives". That may have a place in a totalitarian state, but it has no place in a free country. Don't assume that your POV is shared by everyone just because it is the same as that expressed by a few writers. "Massively supported by facts and scholarship"? Rubbish. Historically the development of police may have been influenced by those desires, but current policing in democratic countries is a very different thing, and in any case the opinions of a few writers who were not actually writing about the police are not relevant to this article and their inclusion constitutes OR in an attempt to put across a particular POV. On those grounds, I too strongly oppose. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this is not my POV, nor anyone's POV. I am quoting standard texts on criminology like Larry J. Siegel's, and major figures like Adam Smith, John Locke and AMERICAN GOVERNMENT FOUNDERS James Madison and John Jay who are DESCRIBING historical facts, not expressing a point of view. These thinkers, remember, WERE NOT describing a "totalitarian state" but simply the development and functions of government--which naturally, includes police. These thinkers (who are backed by mountains of scholarship) didn't say that ALL that government and police do is "protect the minority of the opulent against the majority," but they DID say that it is the main driving force behind their creation and functioning. Of course one may argue about the democratizing influence of social movements and struggles on the behavior of law enforcement officers and on government policy. These have been substantial, but as is amply documented in standard legal history, they have not fundamentally altered the descriptive accuracy of these thinkers' statements. For example, in the first part of his magisterial two volume work The Transformation of American Law, Morton J. Horwitz writes:

"During the eighty years after the American Revolution, a major transformation of the legal system took place... [which] enabled emergent entrepreneurial and commercial groups to win a disproportionate share of wealth and power in American society. The transformed character of legal regulation thus became a major instrument in the hands of these newly powerful groups."[Transformation of American Law 1780-1860 p. xvi Morton J. Horwitz]

Also, to quote another excerpt from the page I posted from Larry J. Siegel's standard book on criminology (this time talking about England, but the history of other countries shows similar facts): "The swelling population of urban poor, whose miniscule wages could hardly sustain them, heightened the need for police protection" http://books.google.com/books?id=PRmhu3M2jv8C&pg=PA515&lpg=PA515&dq=police+american+colonies&source=web&ots=Dxk8AuzQR6&sig=KokKB0NmB0Gs5DWxF3Jl3OhQQcI&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

So LET ME REPEAT: anyone trying to EVADE a description of law enforcement's institutional role is introducing ideological bias. Also, let me note, that unlike people who oppose this description, I have presented evidence from standard books on criminology and law, and from the aforementioned thinkers. They haven't presented any evidence--just a point of view.99.2.224.110 (talk) 22:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not calling four thinkers a "consensus," but there is a conensus that the four thinkers at issue, and their work are notable. If their notable work is relevant, shouldn't it be here? Necros, I'd like you to clarify, as I just asked PMJ: do you think this should be completely removed from the article, or just groomed, edited, and qualified? Non Curat Lex (talk) 22:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be completely removed. As I have said, the use of quotes which do not specifically refer to the police to illustrate a POV about police is effectively OR. It has no place in this article. Whether it has a place in another article is another issue, but here it is irrelevant. Nobody is disputing that these writers are notable; we are merely disputing that the use of their work in an article to which it does not specifically apply is appropriate. Nobody is introducing ideological bias as the anon claims; it is he that is introducing ideological bias by attempting to include general philosophical writings in an article to which they only have tenuous links. He also appears to think that because a well-known writer wrote it then it must be true, which is of course nonsense since these works are themselves purely expressions of opinion, not fact. Adam Smith's opinion may be respected, but it is still only an opinion (a POV in WP terms), and this is an encyclopaedia not a soapbox. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Necrothesp and disagree with the anonymous editor who is clearly pushing an extreme-left Marxist point of view. No respectable political scientist or historian of law enforcement would take that quack analysis seriously! The anonymous editor clearly has not completed (I use that word because you never know if you're dealing with college dropouts on Wikipedia) upper division-level coursework in history at a major research university.--Coolcaesar (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck happened to the lead section? It was okay a few days ago [2] but the bit in there now about John Locke and James Madison needs to go. Wikipedia adheres to summary style and had guidelines for the lead section of articles. The lead section must be a concise, not overly lengthy summary of the article. Also, all those references shouldn't be in the lead, which isn't the place to introduce new information that's not elsewhere in the article. In limited circumstances, a few references in the might be okay, but this is overkill. --Aude (talk) 02:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This red-baiting is laughable. It turns out that seminal works in law like Transformation of American Law by Morton Horwitz, or standard textbooks on criminology like that which I quoted are just "extreme left-marxist" stuff and that John Locke, Adam Smith, John Jay and James Madison are all "extreme left-marxists" and that "no respectable political scientist or historian of law enforcement would take th[eir] quack analysis seriously." Who is guilty of ideological bias here? As should be obvious to everyone, I have provided evidence while you have provided nothing but ad-hominem attacks and the repeated groundless assertion that "it is only an opinion" or that the facts expressed have only "tenuous" links to the role of police. Given that I have provided evidence that these are descriptive historical facts, rather than opinions or "philosophical writings", and that the "links" are not "tenuous" but rather, constitute the main institutional role of law enforcement, the onus is on YOU to prove otherwise. Now, getting back to the real world, if you read the earlier discussion, there are 2 options that I had proposed 1) condense the essence of the quotes in 1 or 2 sentences and link to the thinkers' works (in order to shorten the lede) or 2) start a new section with a name like "Institutional Role" where all these facts are expressed. 99.2.224.110 (talk) 02:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, ok... I do not support the anon's claim that removing the content biases the article. That's only true if you assume his position, and clearly, I do not.

I agree with the Anon that the individuals he is quoting are clearly not Marxists. Although I will caution the Anon that even though the notable quotables are not marxists, their words might still be used to advance a marxist position, and he may be. Does that mean that all analyses that sound in marxism are nonserious? Someone alert Duncan Kennedy.

I disagree with CC's assertion that no respectable political scientist or historian would take a Marxist analysis seriously. Many serious people apply Marxist analyses seriously. CC, I thought you went to a high-falutin law school with ivory tower pretensions. Surely you studied the Crits. I think there is a very common-sense argument, so obvious as to defy even NOR here.

I do not think the article should take a side. And I do not think the article is made biased by removal of all reference. But it stands to be impoverished.

In any case, when I first came here I detected a clear consensus for REMOVING the offending text from the LEAD of the article, where there is no serious question that it HARMS the article. There are now several voices suggesting it be extirpated in its entirity and not replaced anywhere in the article. Although only one POV-pushhing voice has spoken up against this, I do not think that a consensus for absolute removal is as easily found. In my role as an uninvolved editor, I am not taking a side on content, but I will speak on process; and speak up for the possibility you discount, which is that reasonable individuals could support the inclusion of some philosophical, or revisionist, or critical discussion in this article. Moreover, and again, I am weighing in strictly on process, an all-or-nothing approach in dispute reoslution is unrealistic. I think you should take the gain that you have gotten - clear conensus to strike this crap from the lead - and go incrimentally from there. Non Curat Lex (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Non Curat Lex, you may want to take a look at the wikipedia article on wage slavery or at "The Evilness of Power" on google video to see where you and your father went wrong. The question is, what do you think about the proposals made above i.e. either condense the essence of the quotes in 1 or 2 sentences and link to the thinkers' works (in order to shorten the lede) or start a new section with a name like "Institutional Role" where all these facts are expressed?99.2.224.110 (talk) 03:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, perhaps we're ALL wrong - the point is that there is room for intelligent minds to opine or differ. There's a line between POV and conensus in my preference for order over anarchy. True marxists would differ. As for THIS article, let me again clarify my self-identified role. I am not here to make decisions about content on this article, but to help protect the process by being a neutral observer and facilitating dialogue. I think there is a clear consensus for removing the offending content from the lead. I do not see a clear consensus that it should be removed from the article altogether. That means that there is room for someone to do what you described. However, I cannot "authorize" or "protect" or gaurunty the durability of that content in any way. I can promise that I will continue to observe this article and make sure no revert-warring occurs. Non Curat Lex (talk) 03:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody accused John Locke, Adam Smith, John Jay and James Madison of being "extreme left-marxists" or said their writings were "quack analysis". The point being made was that their writings are being synthesised and cut to push a particular point of view, which is Original Research and thus against Wikipedia policy. Where are the "descriptive historical facts" provided to support that analysis, as the anon claims? I see none. All I see are random quotes of opinions of well-known writers (yes, opinions, not in any way "historical facts") which were not originally about the police being used to push an opinion about the police. This selective use of quotes would be rapidly be debunked by any serious scholar, which was the point being made. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Evidence? You must be kidding. Are you relying on people not reading the rest of our discussion on this page? What about the standard texts on criminology I've quoted like Larry J. Siegel's? What about Morton J. Horwitz's The Transformation of American Law? How surprising is it that these texts and innumerable others provide support for John Locke, Adam Smith, John Jay and James Madison's words? It is YOU who has refused to provide a single piece of evidence to defend your position. Where are the works you've quoted? COMON! SHOW US how the evidence I've presented "would be rapidly be debunked by any serious scholar" I guess you figure that if you keep repeating that their consensus is just "an easily debunked opinion" or "particular point of view" you have a better chance at hiding YOUR OWN attempts to introduce political bias by evading a scholarly description of law enforcement's institutional role. 99.2.224.110 (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Necros: As I can interpret it, the "historical fact" is very obvious and contained within the article. Police are agetns of governments charged with preserving order. The quotations all pertain to (notable) normative views of the role, and effect, of governmental exercise of police power. More importantly, you may feel very strongly that you don't like these quotes or how they are presented. That's fine. But you take an uncompromising, all-or-nothing approach to wikipedia content disputes. That's just unrealistic. Why not accept a good compromise? Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Police are indeed charged with preserving order. Whether they are "agents of governments" is open to question. In some countries they are, but in others (the UK for instance) they are not technically anything to do with the government. My opposition is to the selective use of the quotes to push a particular POV, which is inappropriate on Wikipedia generally and certainly inappropriate in this article. Note that the anon's response delberately misquotes my own - I did not say that the evidence he quoted would be debunked by any serious scholar, but that his selective use of it to push a particular POV would be, which are two entirely different things. I am certainly not unwilling to compromise, as you will see below. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed. Look, I'm not saying the article should have POV-pushing. If we push through what I think reflects the consensus, you'll still be able to copyedit those quotes, qualify them, and add contrary material. But if you think you don't like their message, or think that it's too selective, I think the way to do it is to improve is to ADD discussion, not CENSOR it. Meanwhile, the article is just languishing because we can't come to an agreement. However, I saw your comment below, agreeing to the proposal and I think that's a BIG step in the right direction. If we can get PMJ on board, I think the protecting admin will lift the protection and let some progress begin.

By the way in what sense are U.K. police not agents of the government? Non Curat Lex (talk) 09:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British police officers answer only to their Chief Constable and indirectly to the local police authority, neither of which could be considered to be "government" agencies. They do not work for the government, are not paid by the government, and do not answer to the government. They are public servants, but not civil servants. All powers come from the fact that the officer is a constable (sworn in by a magistrate) and thus a judicial officer in his or her own right. This is a major facet of British policing (and one that has frustrated more authoritarian governments on a number of occasions), that they answer to the people they police and not to the government. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, yes, the control is rather decentralized, but wasn't this hierarchy made de jure by The Government by Local Government Act 1972? And don't the police authorities receive partial funding from the Home Office? The structure you describe may assure incredible independance for police officers from the political branches of government, but at the end of the day, they are still weilding governmental power - the power to seize people and things in the name of the law is governmental. And they do it supported by the public. To me, that is government, which makes the individual Authorities and Chief Constables and each and every one of their subordinates an agent of government. Not "The Government" as in "Mrs. Thatcher's Government" or "Mr. Brown's Government," but still, the overall government of the U.K. And moreover, this particular arrangement is clearly accomplished with the consent of Mr. Brown's Government, which surely could strip the Authorities of state funding, outlaw the constabularies, and create a national police force consisting of all of the same bobbies, save the ones who quit... no? Maybe it wouldn't be that simple, but I think that the county police of England have at least the tacit mandate of The Government, and probably a lot more than that. Non Curat Lex (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partly true, but I would still dispute the term "agents of the government". That implies that the loyalty of a police officer is first and foremost to the government, which is simply not true. Could the government strip funding, oulaw constabularies etc? No. Parliament could, certainly, but that's not the government. All semantics maybe, but important semantics as far as most police officers are concerned. It was certainly made very clear to me during my training that we are not government servants. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which, we UK police officer swear our oath to the Queen, not the government, and they are two different things, echo of Necrothesp's comments above. SGGH ^speak! 13:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Brown's Government IS parliament, isn't it??

I am very confused by Necro's semantics. But it has nothing to do with improving the article, so I'm going to take it to the user's talk page, if you don't mind. Non Curat Lex (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. Her Majesty's Government and Parliament are utterly separate, although some people are part of both. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your traditions are alien and strange to me. Warm beer. Government qua government. Truly, the U.S. and U.K. are one nation separated by a common language.

Seriously, what I think we need to do with the article is make sure that if and when we talk about government, we clarify that we mean government academically, rather than constitutionally, or if we mean it constitutionally, we clarify how we are constituting. Agreed? Non Curat Lex (talk) 09:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Content / lead dispute resolution strategy

Folks,

Based do what I have seen in this article and the current debate:

1: The philosophical basis for police is notable content

2: The police article is about the policing process generally

3: The philosophical basis for police has changed over time

4: Putting a 400 year old philosphical basis for policing in the lead of this article is NOT the best way of doing it.

So, the police article should have a brief description of the current philosophical basis for police agencies and then reference as follows:

where the current disputed material has and should be put.

(Sorry, just about to board a plane so no time now to do all the necessary copy editing . . .)

Peet Ern (talk) 05:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your proposal. Even though skeletal, it makes a lot of sense. Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Okay... the last involved editor who we need to hear from is PMJ. What do you say, PMJ? Non Curat Lex (talk) 09:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like it could be a good way to reach a consensus IF done properly. I think the simple addition of this sentence to the lede, (the one in bold), footnoted by the works I mentioned and others, and followed by the aforementioned reference, seems like a reasonable way to proceed.

Police are agents or agencies, usually of the executive, empowered to enforce the law and to effect public and social order through the legitimatized use of force. The term is most commonly associated with police departments of a state that are authorized to exercise the police power of that state within a defined legal or territorial area of responsibility. The word comes via French from the Latin politia (“civil administration”), which itself derives from the Ancient Greek πόλις, for polis ("city").[1] The first police force comparable to present-day police was established in 1667 under King Louis XIV in France, although modern police usually trace their origins to the 1800 establishment of the Marine Police in London, the Glasgow Police, and the Napoleonic police of Paris.[2][3][4] The first modern police force is also commonly said to be the London Metropolitan Police, established in 1829, which promoted the preventive role of police as a deterrent to urban crime and disorder.[5] Law enforcement however, only constitutes a small portion of policing activity.[6]Policing has included an array of activities in different situations, but the predominant ones are concerned with the preservation of order and the provision of services[7]. These occur and developed primarily within the context of maintaining a hierarchical societal structure and distribution of property. Alternative names for police force include constabulary, gendarmerie, police department, police service, crime prevention, protective services, law enforcement agency Garda Síochána, and members can be police officers, troopers, sheriffs, constables, rangers, peace officers or Garda. Russian police and police of the Soviet-era Eastern Europe are (or were) called militsiya. 99.2.224.110 (talk) 10:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is the bolded statement that is an issue, it is uncited and seems to be an anti-authoritarian statement. I am not stating that you feel this way/are inducing this POV, I'm just saying what it sounds like. Nevertheless, I agree with Pee Tern and support this proposal. SGGH ^speak! 13:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per consensus that I see here on the talk page, I have removed the philosophical material from the lead section. We can continue discussing where else it may fit, but the lead section is certainly not the place for it. --Aude (talk) 13:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If only the IP editor had observed what I had suggested, what an incredible amount of admin and user time it would have saved, along with a large discussion that ended with the same outcome, as I had suggested in the first place. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 13:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution phase

All, I have added a sentence to the lead, without I hope potentially PoV adjectives, and a wiki reference to the new article Law enforcement and society so that editors can see what it might look like. I am happy to work on the new article myself, but I already have a number of other things on my plate so will not be able to get to it for some time. So, all of you above, and other editors of course, please be bold and have a go at it.

Rodhullandemu, as protecting Admin, if you are happy that a viable concensual outcome has been reached, and there are no objections to my new lead sentence, I am happy to formally archive the above and reference such also from the new article.

But I see that things are not yet settled - I will wait then . . . !!

Peet Ern (talk) 02:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have had one more try at what I thought was the agreed concensual position.

Cheers Peet Ern (talk) 07:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I see problem here. Simply put in most democratic countries police are not "agents" of the executive (or the government). They are empowered, by the government, to carry out specific functions. That's very different. Police are often, at least in theory and to a greater or lesser extent, independent of government, just like the judiciary. If that were not true no member of a government would ever be charged with a crime or found guilty. DJ Clayworth (talk) 03:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and this can/should be fixed separately, I think. Peet Ern (talk) 07:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not read any of the below, except for a few lines. I was agreeing that there was an issue, not with the statement, or against it, just that it was an issue. Sorry, but I do not have the time for this one now. I will leave it to others. I was just trying to get past the major impasse in the lead, which I think we have done ? Peet Ern (talk) 03:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pee: I had a longer reply but lost it due to an edit conflict. Darnit. Suffice it to say, I disagree with you on two points. First, you posit that if police are part of the government, other people in government will never be prosecuted. That's not true. People can serve a single government but still be independant of one another. In the US, we have a Constitution which, in one fell swoop, created one Federal government, of limited power, with its limited power seperated furher between three independant branches - a legislative branch to make the law, an executive branch to enforce it, and a judiciary to provide oversight. The branches hold each other accountable. The ultiamte referees of inter-branch conflicts are the judges, because the constitution specifically insulates them from reprisal (they can't be fired). And because the judges are independant, anyone in the executive can hold anyone else in the executive or legislature accountable using the justice system. The legislature can also help hold the executive accountable, but that's more complicate. Hence, while it doesn't happen all the time, there can be one government with seperate, coordinate, and independant branches, providing ample checks and balances.

Second, you posit that there is a difference between serving a function of government, and being part of the government. You buttress this by saying that judges are not part of the government. I reject that on several levels for several reasons. First, judges are part of the government. As argued above, institutions of the same government can be independant of one another and still be part of the same government. Moreover, police are providing governmental functions in three ways. (So are judges).

Police do not make the law, but they are required to enforce the criminal laws that have been made by the legislatures and to protect private property. Executives enforce it. That is a governmental perogative which has been delegated to the police.

Police have the power to use coercive force - that is, they can seize people and property. Private citizens generally cannot do that. That's a governmental perogative, which has been delegated to the police.

Police are not self-funding. They don't sell their services on the open market like private citizens plying a trade. They are funded by the government, which raises money for them by taxation.

In these three ways, Police are governmental. Even if there is a long standing tradition of "thinking of Police as not being governmental" within your culture, to an outside observer, I see nothing that shows how police are not doing a governmental job, using governmental power. They can still be VERY independant - and they should be. It would be bad law to set up a police force not to be very independant. But while they are independant of other parts of the government, they are still themselves very much a part of your total government. Non Curat Lex (talk) 08:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Police have the power to use coercivce force - that is, they can seize people and property. Private citizens generally cannot do that." Yes they can. Anyone in the UK can arrest someone for an offence. True, the police have powers that members of the public do not have, but we wouldn't see them as being delegated to us by the government, only by the people. "Citizens in uniform" is a common phrase used by and about the British police.

"They are funded by the government, which raises money for them by taxation." No, actually, they're largely directly funded in the UK. The money is collected by local councils as part of the Council Tax, but this is merely a delegation by the police authority to make things easier to handle. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, what do you mean by "directly funded?" I am unfamiliar with the terminology.

Second, I think that is fair to say that U.S. Police are "citizens in uniform" as well. In fact, in the U.S., we hold even more strongly that all of us are equal, in that we have no monarchy, and no nobility. All of us are citizens, and all of us are accountable to the rule of law. Our government does not purport to be a government of God's law, but of man's law. Hence, being part of the government is not special - it merely means you are accountable to even more scrutiny from more people than a private citizen.

Third, having powers delegated to you by the people, to me, still means "government." Forgetting divine right to rule for the moment, all government has in common that it is legitimated by the consent of its governed, isn't it? That is, all governments have no more, and no less, power than is collectively delegated to them by the people, because a successful revolution (however unusual and unlikely) has the power to make its own law. The delegation can be completely voluntary, or it can be maintained by force, or it can a mix. So when you say that the power is delegated to the police by the people, you're not really distinguishing the police from any other part of government.

People could also give someone the authority to protect them by contract, which allows two people to make their own law amongst themselves. But clearly, your right to police is not governed by an express private contract between you and individual members of the public. You represent "the public" as a whole, not individual parties. Imagine the opposite? Lawbreakers would caim as a defense that they didn't sign off on your rule of law. They didn't want to be a part of the system. What authority would you have over them? Well, we both know that isn't a defense, and that would be a bad system. No, your power does not come from a contract, but from a collective delegation that abstacts the public as a whole. Nothing could be more governmental. Haven't you read Leviathan?? Non Curat Lex (talk) 09:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non Curat Lex your viewpoint seems to be one-sided here. There are many flaws in your argument. One problem is that you seem to be using 'the government' in a very wide sense, that is not usually understood. If you claim that any power delegated to a group by the people makes them part of 'the government' then the opposition party is part of 'the government', a statement which would be seen as contradictory by most people. Secondly a group can have powers delegated to it without having restrictions imposed by those in power on how it carries them out. That is the ideal of policing and the judiciary in western democracies. It is stretching the point in the extreme to say that makes them 'part of the government'. In short independence is at least partially possible, whereas your statements seem to imply that it is not. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DJ:

Before I go any furhter I feel the need to disambiguate. You're talking about both normative and descriptive issues here at the same time (as am I sometimes). First, the descriptive issue is what the term "government" includes. Then, second, there is the issue of what "should be" part of the government.

First, descriptively, you are using "government" in a way that is used within your culture (British Canadian). I am using it in a way used by political science students in English-speaking universities. See Michael J. Sodaro, Comparative Politics: A Global Introduction (McGraw-Hill 2004). As used in studies, "government" does not just mean the faction that is in charge; it means the whole of governmental power in any given state entity. As used in your culture (and PMJ's, and Necro's) the "Government" only refers to the leadership group of the faction in power in the legislature (or something like that).

I am not trying to be one-sided. There is a conensus for my use of government. There is also a consensus for use. But as you realize, we're not talking about the same thing in the same way. You don't customarily use government. You customarily use "Government," and you mean something different by it. There is no conflict as long as we are clear which way we are using the term. I'm not saying that the article should reflect "my way." The reason I am having this discussion is that I believe we need in editing this article, we need to make sure it is not one-sided, and can be understood by both Anglos and Yanks alike.

Thus, I understand that The Opposition is not part of The Government. The Government consists of the leadership block of the ruling faction of the legislature, and the people who report to them. The police are not part of that. I clearly understand. And the opposition is the non-ruling faction, so they are not part of the Government too. I understand why to people who commonly use "Government" (upper-case-G) as you do, would view that as a contradiction. But when we use government -- with a lower case "g" it's quite different. When you talk abot government as a whole, or in a theoretical context, it makes no more sense to exclude the opposition. They may not be in charge, but they're still MPs who are elected to serve a political function, whose vounts count, and who have the right to question the PM about his government, and do all of the other things an individual MP can do. So as I use "government" it is a contradiction to say the opposition ISN'T part of government. But I'm not campaigning to have my way set the tone for the article. I'm campaigning for the article be culture-neutral. So I think you must have misunderstood me.

Second, I'll address your normative position. You are arguing that the police should not be part of government. First of all, let's check terms again. Do you mean they should not be part of The Government? Because you'll get no disagreement from me there. Of course the police need to be unaccountable to the individual leaders. But are you saying they shouldn't be part of a country's government at all? Because that's saying they are private, or should be privatized. I do not think that is ideal at all. We can discuss this point further, but first, I want to know what point we're discussing, and if we actually have a disagreement on this point. Non Curat Lex (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually took that class with Professor Sodaro, first time I've seen it cited! Avruch^T 14:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lex, I understand your point of view. But I put it to you that a terminology used in university departments is not appropriate for a general encyclopedia, especially if the common usage of that terminology is different. So saying that "police are part of the government" will be misunderstood. That is enough reason not to say it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DJ, I am pretty ure it won't be misunderstood by Americans! It should not be misunderstood by others if it's properly explained. I can't think of a more general term. But let me ask you this: you use "Government" in the way that we use "Administration." Do you have a different word for what I mean when I say "government?" Non Curat Lex (talk) 00:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a British context, possibly "state" or "public". Wardog (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[undent] As I understand this most recent debate, what you are trying to say is that in the U.K. the police are an independent agency of local government, rather than being an executive department.

As for the larger debate as to including quotes from great philosophical thinkers in the lead (to support the assertion that the police exist to protect the property of the rich from the poor): I think that is a significant and notable, but also controversial, point of view, and that the brief mention of it in the current version of the lead is a good compromise although I would not oppose the insertion of additional <refs> (not quotes, just footnotes) to primary sources. The full quotes might be added to the section "Alternative view of role of policing," which I am boldly renaming to "criticisms of the institutional role of policing" (but if you revert me I probably won't notice). Bwrs (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to have deviated somewhat from the original debate, which was whether a political analysis of the function of the police (which, a week ago, was the major thrust of this article) was appropriate here. Peet Ern has started a new article in which those issues can be addressed. This article, as long as I've been involved with it, has addressed the police in practical rather than theoretical terms, and I suggest that the political arguments are more sensibly dealt with in a more comprehensive treatment, although they can be linked from here for those readers (remember them? - are they not the reason we are here?) who wish to follow that thread of argument. Meanwhile, the political role of the police appears to me to be not that relevant to this article, because this article predicates that the police exist, but not why, and again, that argument could be dealt with elsewhere. --Rodhull andemu 01:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rod - I am not debating that. I immediately supported the deletion of the content from the lead. I have deviated slightly from TPG to have an interesting discussion about semantics, with the apparent consent of all involved. The anon marxist doesn't seem to be pushing any points still. I believe this is case closed; I'm just sticking around for the tea and crumpets. Non Curat Lex (talk) 05:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provision of Services

I've just removed for the second time a statement in the intro that police forces are predominantly concerned with the "provision of services". The statement is far to vague to be useful, since almost any agency not devoted to production of material goods is concerned with the "provision of services". It should not come back unless someone explains what kind of services they are concerned with providing. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thief taker!=Thief-Taker

The thief taker here does not link to the thief-taker but to the band of the name, which actually links to it. 79.238.223.150 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Hadrian's secret service

I would suggest that a description of a Roman Emperor's secret service is not relevant to a description of police. [[User:DJ Clayworth|DJ Clayworth]] (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United States Bias in Strategy section

The Strategy section seems to show a pretty strong bias to only United States Police forces. It may be a good idea to include discussions on a few other global forces, and not limit things in this fashion, since the strategies of, say the RCMP, London Metropolitan Police, Suréte or others are very, very different from the ones used in the United States. 216.99.36.141 (talk) 06:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

integrate: Mint Police and Postal Police

Just read the first time about United States Mint Police and United States Postal Inspection Service. Is there a list of all US Police Agencies ;) --demus wiesbaden (talk) 20:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try [3].Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 20:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The topic "armament and equipment" at its second paragraph, It's stated that by the brazilian law police officers are allowed to use deadly force against fleeing felons and escaped convicts. That's a wrong information. Without a threat against someone it's a crime hurts a criminal or a fugitive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tharthak (talk • contribs) 05:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"pleess"

"In English it is nearly always pronouned "pleess", dropping the 'o'."

Is this really true? I'm pretty sure that here in the UK at least the 'o' is pronounced. Passingtramp (talk) 09:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are certainly differences in pronunciation, but it's hardly "nearly always". Pronunciation of a mundane word like "police" isn't of encyclopaedic interest (absolutely any article could have "here are some phonetic pronunciations of the word, in different countries"), so I'll remove it. --McGeddon (talk) 09:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with the sentence. Could do with a reference if it is to be included, due to the fact that it is claimed to be "nearly always". Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big talk page revert and new archive box

I added an archive box for the talk pages and reverted the page to a previous edit by Miznabot from May. Serious vandalism had occurred (see the Japanese text for yourself) and little was salvageable. Miznabot had created a talk page archive without adding an actual archive box on the page, so I myself wondered if someone mass-deleted the page. - Cyborg Ninja 23:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! That's a major reversion, but I don't read Japanese so I accept that, but is there really nothing in between that is salvageable, even with {{cn}} tags? It may be that if it's going to take disproportionate work to sort it out, it's better to start with a version that at least we can trust. Rodhull andemu 23:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing missing except the Japanese rambling. I thought there was more, but I checked just now and there wasn't. - Cyborg Ninja 00:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fine, thanks. Rodhull andemu 00:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Police Brutality & Racism

Is anyone against adding a police brutality & Racism section to this article? It seems a little incomplete to have an article about cops without addressing their two most famous characteristics.--Willdw79 (talk) 00:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Police#Use_of_force covers it just fine. Brutality and racism are really not the two most famous characteristics of police; this is an encyclopedia, not a reflection of the media. ninety:one 22:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree--Willdw79 (talk) 00:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Two most famous characteristics"? Please see WP:REDFLAG. In short, no. Rodhull andemu 00:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More police means less crime?

I have a question:More police means less crime? What is correct level of policeman to the population? 1 police for every 100,200,300,etc. persons?Agre22 (talk) 13:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)agre22[reply]

This page is for discussion of changes to the article, it is not a discussion forum about the police - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction : function of police

I changed "maintain a hierarchical order" to simply "maintain order" because the former phrase seems to allude to ideas about alternative kinds of order, e.g. hierarchical versus non-hierarchical, that were not explained either in this article or in the articles on hierarchy or on police power, or in the stub article on natural order. Lacking that kind of background explanation, I think a reference to maintaining hierarchical order is likely to be more confusing than helpful.CharlesHBennett (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, "order" is extremely vague--with multiple possible interpretations, and gets even less treatment in the article. 69.228.251.134 (talk) 00:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Justifying the word "hierarchical" before the word "order"

The dictionary http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/order shows 56 definitions/uses of the word "order". FIFTY-SIX! That's why I think that, in the interest of clarity, one should specify just exactly what kind of order one is referring to. Is it, say, the obsequious "harmonious arrangement" (number 5)?. Are we meaning to define the police as people who bring about harmony? Or is it, say, number 4?:

the disposition of things following one after another, as in space or time; succession or sequence: The names were listed in alphabetical order.

Not quite. The word refers to definition number 9, in which the sentence "A police officer was there to maintain order" is offered as an example with the following root definition:

conformity or obedience to law or established authority...

The fundamental difference between definition number 4 and 9 in defining police function is that "the disposition of things following one after another" -- what we could call the structure/order of our society -- exists in the context of "obedience to...established authority" i.e. *hierarchical* order.

The dictionary defines hierarchy http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hierarchy as "any system of persons or things ranked one above another." Now, without even mentioning police power over citizens, (or economic power e.g. assuming the police-protected property of Fortune 500 owners don't rank them above a beggar), the fact is that the aforementioned "established authority" can't be denied. Unless you think that the president of the US doesn't have more power than a senator or a governor, which has more than a mayor, which has more than a Captain, which has more than a police officer etc, you can't deny we're talking about a "hierarchical" order. This is a straight-up reading of the dictionary. It's neither "vandalism" nor "marxism" as Rodhullandemu has declared. The purpose or consequence of omitting the concisely descriptive word "hierarchical" seems clear:

Magnifying ambiguity to lead readers into a different definition of the word, or into an image of the police as some sort of maintainers of a neutral or "harmonious" state of affairs. This leads readers *away* from definition number 9, which describes *precisely* the kind of order we need to specify. Now, if you still really hate the word "hierarchical", I think that can be remedied by simply substituting it for the aforementioned dictionary definition:

conformity or obedience to law or established authority...

69.228.251.134 (talk) 06:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside the original Greek definition of hierarchy as "government by priests", what we are talking about is "an organisation with grades or classes ranked one above the other". The word "order" in the lead is clearly intended to refer to "social order" as opposed to "disorder", rather than any ordering within a hierarchy. That's why use of "hierarchical" in this context is simply wrong, and it should go. And it is considered rude to change wording back to one's preferred version before consensus has been reached. Rodhull andemu 09:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You say: "The word 'order' in the lead is clearly intended to refer to "social order" as opposed to "disorder", rather than any ordering within a hierarchy."

Exactly!!! Which is precisely why it adheres more closely to definition number 4 (or even 5), than number 9 ("obedience to...established authority.")--the one meant to describe order vis a vis police function (as the dictionary implies, we should not equate lack of "disorder" with "obedience to...established authority.") 69.228.251.134 (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. When we use the phrase "law and order", we mean order in the sense of "public order", which is a well-defined term - see, for example, Lord Scarman in "The Red Lion Square Disorders of 15 June 1974" (Cmnd. 5019}: "Amongst our fundamental human rights there are, without doubt, the rights of peaceful assembly and public protest and the right to public order and tranquility" - as a way of expressing maintenance of the peace. I've never seen a writer refer to it as if it meant a social hierarchy, and "hierarchical" in that context is meaningless, unless you think there are degrees of disorder (which there actually are, in law, but that's irrelevant). Perhaps to avoid looking stupid we should say

"The police is a service consisting of people empowered to enforce the law and maintain public order through the legitimized use of force."

and forget about "hierarchical" altogether. It's a distraction. Rodhull andemu 16:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You say "...[W]e use the phrase "law and order"... as a way of expressing maintenance of the peace."

I know you do, and that, once again, is my point. According to the dictionary, "peace" in this context is "freedom from civil disorder". This is precisely why it adheres more closely to definition number 4 (some neutral "disposition of things") or 5 ("harmony"), than number 9 ("obedience to...established authority.")--the one *the dictionary itself* describes as order vis a vis police function. As I already said, the dictionary implies we should not equate lack of "disorder" with "obedience to...established authority". You keep making the mistake of equating them. And I see you have a further ax to grind with your suggestion that we substitute the word "hierarchical" with "public" which wikipedia itself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_force defines as "serving the public interests" (a rather ideological assumption, equating "obedience to...established authority" with "the public interest"). So, no, "hierarchical" is not a distraction. Rather it's a dictionary-backed solution to the distracting and misleading ambiguity of the word "order"--which as I said has 56 meanings, some of which confuse and mislead readers. 69.228.251.134 (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you'd stop this slavish reliance on what dictionaries say; they are descriptive, not prescriptive, of usage. In the case of this article, and its universe of discourse, "order" has a well-defined meaning, which is "public order"- that term is related to, but not dependent upon, "obedience to...established authority". Sure, the law prescribes remedies for breach of public order, ranging from ASBOs and binding over to imprisonment, and it is largely a role of the police to enforce the law in relation thereto, but that in no way suggests to me that the "order" referred to is in any way "hierarchical" in that its strata could be evaluated or enumerated. Dictionary-based solutions are rarely apposite to terms of art. Rodhull andemu 17:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you've openly admitted your belief that the current use of the word "order" in the article is "well-defined" and leads readers toward the notion of a "public order" -- since, as I said, wikipedia itself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_force defines this "public order" as "serving the public interests". Unfortunately, if you are right, all this would indicate is that rather than eliciting confusion with the aformentioned 56 definitions/uses of the word "order", the text leads readers toward an ideological interpretation of the word i.e. equating "obedience to...established authority" with "the public interest". As for saying that the "order" the police maintain is not "in any way 'hierarchical' in that "its strata could be evaluated or enumerated", I wonder if you bother to read my posts. I will repeat what I said earlier in the hope that this time you'll detect the "strata [herein] evaluated or enumerated":

'The dictionary defines hierarchy http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hierarchy as "any system of persons or things ranked one above another." Now, without even mentioning police power over citizens, (or economic power e.g. assuming the police-protected property of Fortune 500 owners don't rank them above a beggar), the fact is that the aforementioned "established authority" can't be denied. Unless you think that the president of the US doesn't have more power than a senator or a governor, which has more than a mayor, which has more than a Captain, which has more than a police officer etc, you can't deny we're talking about a "hierarchical" order.'

Astonishingly, you claim that this hierarchy that the police help maintain is neither a hierarchy, nor "dependent upon 'obedience to...established authority'". I don't know which world you live in. 69.228.251.134 (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Your discussion above is an argument about how police powers are apparently exercised selectively in order to protect the strata of a (hierarchical) society from each other. That is an exercise in political philosophy, and not the avowed purpose of policing; it certainly does not belong in the lead, but is probably addressed elsewhere. Meanwhile, the world in which I live, and in which I qualified in both law and criminology, is the one in which words may be used to convey meanings intended by their authors, not some Humpty Dumpty world in which they are used for some ulterior purpose. I'd remind you that police officers were at one time called "peace officers", and as long ago as 1316 the primary role of local constables was the "preservation of the Queen's Peace". This is the derivation of "order", as in "public order", and any later political analysis in relation to class- or structure-based societies is a different use of the word "order". Meanwhile, since you don't seem to be getting this distinction, I'm going to ask for a third opinion. Rodhull andemu 18:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see in the text, and in the dictionary definitions I presented, I contend that the "ulterior purpose" in relation to the word "order" belongs to you, not me. Offering the fact that at some point totalitarian state authorities (monarchies) labeled "police officers" as "peace officers" to legitimize their function, actually supports my argument and exposes your ideological framework. I mean, your admission that the meaning you want to attach to "order" ("as in 'public order'") comes from this totalitarian system-- from this "preservation of the Queen's Peace" proves beyond any doubt that you can't detect the extremely political and ideological nature of your own statements. I mean, let's take you at your word. Let's say that we both went back to 1316--the year you're using to bolster your case. Let's say I contended that the main role of the police was maintaining a hierarchical order. And let's say that you said that I was wrong, and that the police ("peace officers") were mainly maintaining a peaceful order in the public's interest. Which statement would have more accuracy? Which would have an "ulterior purpose"? 69.228.251.134 (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Your comments merely expose your ulterior purpose. But let's leave it to a wider audience, shall we? Rodhull andemu 18:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Rodhullandemu. In one of the most unnecessary pieces of wikilawyering I've seen, the IP seems to have picked up a dictionary and scrawled 'the book of all that is right' on the cover of it, and then proceeded to read the parts of it that they want to through Marx-tinted spectacles. I'd just like to pick them up on the last comment, which was the worst of the lot: 'police officers' were not labeled as 'peace officers' in 1361, rather 'peace officers' were labeled as 'police officers' sometime in the late 19th century. Indeed, the word 'police' was not even commonly used until the advent of professional police forces in the 1800s. Put Das Kapital down and get off the Reichstag. ninety:one 19:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing about dictionary definitions is clearly getting nowhere. Can I suggest that the meaning be clarified by the use of a link? Two examples would be.

...to enforce the law and maintain social order through the legitimized use of force.
...to enforce the law and reduce civil disorder through the legitimized use of force.

Of these, I prefer number two. If you read the two articles, civil disorder relates more directly to what police do.

Yaris678 (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec with Yaris678) Second Third Opinion agree with Rodhullandemu and Ninetyone. Adding the word "hierarchical" would assert that that the police exist to preserve some sort of class system; a highly non-neutral addition to the article. Mildly Mad^T_C 20:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's amazing about the rabid ideological fanaticism of these "third opinions" is that the very suggestion that the police maintain a hierarchical order--the very suggestion that we follow the dictionary's definition, elicits slurs such as "marxist" "Put Das Kapital down" etc. As if the dictionary was marxist, or as if marxism was the only philosophy that detects hierarchy. Would it be proper for anyone to say something like "take off your statist and capitalist blinders off" "put your corporate propaganda down"? Should such statements be considered valid "third opinions"? Rodhullandemu, Ninetyone, Yaris678 and MildlyMad --you all believe the police do not maintain a hierarchical order. Yet you have ALL REFUSED to respond to a statement I made:

'The dictionary defines hierarchy http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hierarchy as "any system of persons or things ranked one above another." Now, without even mentioning police power over citizens, (or economic power e.g. assuming the police-protected property of Fortune 500 owners don't rank them above a beggar), the fact is that the aforementioned "established authority" can't be denied. Unless you think that the president of the US doesn't have more power than a senator or a governor, which has more than a mayor, which has more than a Captain, which has more than a police officer etc, you can't deny we're talking about a "hierarchical" order.'

Now, please stop the lazy and cowardly insults. Find the courage to respond to this 69.228.251.134 (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've had your third opinion, and consensus is against you; if you don't accept it, you should open a Request for Comment, and that's all you can do here. Rodhull andemu 21:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unanswered argument for the proposal of "hierarchical order"

Rodhullandemu, Ninetyone, Yaris678 and MildlyMad --you all believe the police do not maintain a hierarchical order. Yet you have ALL REFUSED to respond to a statement I made:

'The dictionary defines hierarchy http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hierarchy as "any system of persons or things ranked one above another." Now, without even mentioning police power over citizens, (or economic power e.g. assuming the police-protected property of Fortune 500 owners don't rank them above a beggar), the fact is that the aforementioned "established authority" can't be denied. Unless you think that the president of the US doesn't have more power than a senator or a governor, which has more than a mayor, which has more than a Captain, which has more than a police officer etc, you can't deny we're talking about a "hierarchical" order.'

Do you not believe that this arrangement has hierarchical properties? And if you claim to not be able to look at social factors, why do you then insist on adding words that emphasize "social peace" or "public interest" etc? 69.228.251.134 (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOTFORUM. Rodhull andemu 21:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rodhullandemu, Please read it closely WP:NOTFORUM. It fits you like a glove. And of course, you still refuse to respond. You are intelligent enough to know you can't respond to the statement I made. So you keep using dirty, hypocritically distracting tricks. 69.228.251.134 (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what this has to do with the article any more. Nobody can dispute definition of "hierarchy," and we mostly agree that a "hierarchy" (social order) exists in society. What more do you want? Mildly Mad^T_C 21:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

God, this is so frustrating. Have you read anything that was written? Just like I told Rodhullandemu, the dictionary implies we should not equate social order or lack of "disorder" with "obedience to...established authority"--the definition of police order. You equate social order with hierarchy and this does not stand up to scrutiny. Now, if you do agree, as you say, that a hierarchical order exists in our society (as, say, I describe in the first post of this section), what role do the police play in maintaining said social order? Please answer.69.228.251.134 (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did read everything (including the same argument you copied and pasted twice), thanks for asking. "Order" as used in the first sentence of the article refers to the opposite of Civil disorder, rather than a Social order, as you claim. Mildly Mad^T_C 21:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the "social order" does seem more of a consensus edit. 69.228.251.134 (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this mythical consensus? I don't see it, and I dispute such a consensus exists. This is just your words again. Rodhull andemu 22:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So far we have 2 people in favour of civil disorder (myself and Mildly Mad) and one person in favour of social order (the ISP). Yaris678 (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... and myself in favour of civil disorder, since that's what I've been arguing. Consensus would appear to be clear thus far, then. Rodhull andemu 23:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in favor of "social order". I said it was more of a consensus edit. I favor "hierarchical order", fow which I've provided irrefutable evidence. If society progresses, anybody who looks back at people who deny the police maintained a hierarchical order will laugh. You guys are so so cowardly (notice no one has DARED respond to the original post), and so ideological, I'm simply not going to continue wasting my time. Have it your way--push the notion we live in a classless society without hierarchy, where cops just maintain a harmonious "peace" and "public interest". Go kiss the feet of your government and wall street "equals". Go join your Stalinist counterparts in the whitewashing of history. This article is a joke thanks to you. 69.228.251.134 (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And this thread is now an extremely amusing example of how not to win an argument, thanks to you. So much so, that I think that this section is worthy of inclusion in WP:LAME. Rodhull andemu 00:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, we're clearly all sheeple, and IP134 is the only one that knows WP:The Truth. Mildly Mad^T_C 05:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A better sentence

The currently extant statement is: The police is a service consisting of people empowered to enforce the law and maintain order through the legitimized use of force. Firstly (with no flippancy intended) there is a redundant repetition of force. To enforce the law implies "through the legitimized use of force". Secondly, there is an awkwardness about giving the plural noun "police" a singular complement, viz. "service". I would therefore offer for discussion a sounder construction:-- "A police body (or service or force) is one authorized to ensure compliance with and, if necessary, to enforce laws and regulations governing criminal and other prohibited behaviours". My sentence also has the merit of excluding the quasi-political non-NPOV content of some earlier proposals. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 11:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to start another argument about dictionary definitions, but it might help if you looked up wikt:enforce in wiktionary. We are clearly using meaning 4:

4. To keep up, impose or bring into effect something, not necessarily by force.

Interestingly, if you look up enforce in wikipedia, you come to the page on Police!

If there is a problem with the current sentence, it is that it looks like the use of force is all they do. Perhaps something like:

The police is a service consisting of people empowered to enforce the law and reduce civil disorder. Their powers include the legitimized use of force.

I know what you mean about the police being plural, but I also know this is a convention often not followed. If we want to follow the convention, perhaps the simplest way would be to drop the use of service altogether. i.e.

The police are people empowered to enforce the law and reduce civil disorder. Their powers include the legitimized use of force.

Yaris678 (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There can be no objection to your last sentence, which is less wordy and therefore better than mine for our purposes. I especially endorse the term "civil", at a time when (civilian) police like to differentiate themselves from 'civilians' (at least in my neck of the woods). Military police operate under a military code and are, of course, entitled to call any non-military folk civilians, our police included. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overview section (old comment)

I have a number of criticisms of the Overview section.

The "milestones" at the beginning seem to be in the wrong place. Surely this is part of the History section.
Statement about how the police in the 18th and 19th century "developed in the context of maintaining the class system". What does this mean? Was that their purpose? Was that their effect? The phrase is so woolly, "developed in the context" could mean that "maintaining the class system" was something they were opposing. It would help if someone who had access to the cited reference could check what is actually said.
The stuff about the different words for police could be put in a section called Terminology, along with the bit about the etymology of the term, currently in the lead.
Are garda and militsiya really alternative names for police? Or are they just words for police in other languages (Irish and Russian)?

Yaris678 (talk) 12:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Threats to the establishment

An IP wants to state that police are empowered to reduce threats to the establishment. This seems like a particular point of view to me, rather than a statement of fact. If you think otherwise, please explain yourself here. Yaris678 (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In one sense, it's a truism--a threat to 'civil order' is a threat to the establishment, so why add a redundant statement? The IP editor, however, seems to be putting a viewpoint (aka POV)--that protection of 'the establishment' (which seems not to include him/her) is reprehensible and thus needs to be aired in Wikipedia. OK, I can relate to the anti-cop sentiment, but Wikipedia is NOT the place for 'letters to the editor'. Also, this article is about police generally, not just the police of a particular country or town. I would think that, eg, military police do quite a different job from protecting 'the establishment'. They might be doing their work halfway across the world from the bureaucrats who set them up. There's no doubt it's a minority POV and I've again reverted it as such (and will continue to do so unless the IP editor puts up a good argument and obtains something like consensus). Cheers Bjenks (talk) 10:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bjenks, you say "in one sense, it's a truism--a threat to 'civil order' is a threat to the establishment, so why add a redundant statement?"

It's not redundant. That's why it said: "...reduce civil disorder or OTHER threats to the establishment". Did you miss the word "other"? Also, you imply that military police "reduce civil disorder" but do not protect the establishment. This sentence is the only argument you offer:

"They might be doing their work halfway across the world from the bureaucrats who set them up."

Even if this were true, do you think this constitutes evidence for your argument?

Also, since the military engages in war, whose motivations have been varied throughout history (material, territorial, aggressive etc -- often causing a good deal of destruction, chaos and disorder) the notion that they "reduce civil disorder" seems very POV--especially since their actions were often on behalf of the establishment they worked for. In fact, they acted not just to "reduce threats" to their existing interests (i.e. defensively) but often to pursue & expand their prospective interests. 69.228.251.134 (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a talk page for discussing improvements to this article. It is NOT a chatroom for discussing the political implications of policing, particularly when other articles exist for that purpose, and are well-sourced; see the "See also" section. This article is a functional and historical description of what "Police" means. It should not be hijacked to make a point for which it is not intended. "Political" arguments do not belong here, and if you persist in pursuing your own agenda here, not only will I block you for a lengthy period, but will defend my adminship againt your single-minded misunderstanding of what an encyclopedia, and this article, is meant to be. In short, you've significantly failed so far to have your position accepted, and I really suggest you start your own blog, or join an existing one, to further your position. I'll just remind you that when there was a content conflict recently and I sought a third opinion, outside opinion was overwhelmingly against you. I'm disappointed that you are not getting the message that things need to be reliably sourced here, and if you can't get a hold of that, please take it somewhere else. Thanks. Rodhull andemu 00:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And for fuck's sake, please use the Preview button to avoid Edit Conflicts. We don't have time for this shit. Rodhull andemu 00:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Rodhullandemu, as I've proven in my posts, it is your definitions of the police which are political in the extreme, and I'm here to correct your outrageous biases and shocking ignorance. Please stop imposing your ideological agenda. That kind of garbage doesn't belong here. If you continue with your rabid disruptions, I will be the one to block you for a lengthy period. I also suggest that you start your own blog--just take your propaganda somewhere away from here. You're making this article into an utter joke. To quote you: "we don't have time for this shit". 69.228.251.134 (talk) 08:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shut up already. You can't block Rodhull, but he can block you. Consensus is clearly against you. Go rant somewhere else (like a blog). Griffinofwales (talk) 14:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, YOU "shut up already". The only "consensus" here is the one of your gang -- which has hijacked this article to whitewash police actions-- blocking anyone who counters this disgusting propaganda. Are you guys getting paid by some police department to this? If I find out you have, I'll make sure all of you are banned from wikipedia forever. 69.228.251.134 (talk) 00:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not going to happen. You make no attempts to reach consensus, continuing to push your own minority viewpoint, and harangue other editors in doing so. I've had enough of your failure to grasp the way we work here, your failure to accept defeat gracefully, and your persistent reverts against consensus. It's clear your IP address is static, but I wouldn't count on it being usable here for a while. Rodhull andemu 00:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From an outside person to this discussion I have to say that you are pushing the most biast view point User:69.228.251.134. What you are trying to push is not encycopedic at all. I see no real sources for your view point. --Guerillero (talk) 02:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, and this matter is now at WP:ANI#Police for wider examination. Rodhull andemu 02:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would hazard a guess that the IP got a speeding ticket and is annoyed about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's THE TRUTH all right, or perhaps he has read that "a nation is that which has the monopoly of violence". I agree with Rodhullandemus assessment. I'll restart WP:LE's efforts to watch this one. SGGH ^ping! 13:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are encyclopedia definitions prescriptive or descriptive?

Apparently political disputes between editors are often based on different underlying assumptions about how things are done in Wikipedia. It's easy to form a belief that an opposing editor is an unreasonable political extremist even though the main difference may be that they have some fundamentally different ideas about encyclopedias.

In this case I think the underlying difference is as in the title of this section. Perhaps making it explicit leads us to an amicable solution of the current dispute.

For groups and organisations that notoriously don't live up to their own standards, the decision whether we describe them as they are supposed to be or as they are in practice is crucial.

Sometimes the most natural description is neutral:

The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest judicial body in the United States, and leads the federal judiciary.

This is descriptive and prescriptive. A prescriptive definition might add that the SCOTUS makes an important contribution to the proper functioning of the US' court system, including aspects such as consistent application of the law. A descriptive definition might instead add that the SCOTUS gives the President and the Senate limited long-term control of the interpretation of the law, even going so far as to creatively reinterpret obsolete old laws and decisions that make no sense outside their original context in order create new rules that would have no chance of being passed as new laws by the legislative.

For a number of reasons there is also a gap between what the police is supposed to be and do, and what it is and does in practice. How big and important this gap is varies widely, not just between countries and different kinds of police within, but even on a local level. There is a huge difference between the incredibly obliging manner in which I, a foreigner, was treated by the British Transport Police when caught with a seriously overloaded car, and the way police even in the UK often malfunctions when dealing with its own problems, such as the Jean Charles de Menezes case or even relatively harmless cases such as this travesty.

I think in such cases we should generally use a prescriptive definition, but mention applicable descriptions as well. Practices such as severe overuse of potentially lethal "crowd control" techniques appear to be a common trait of almost all police forces in the world. Yet this is generally regarded as a failure of the police rather than its proper role. Consider a definition of the police that is carefully crafted to include tazering pregnant women who do not pose a risk to anybody (or confused Polish immigrants at an airport), arresting five-year-olds who are in a temper tantrum, illegal racial profiling, establishing "free speech zones", or this as normal functions. Such a definition may be perfectly correct as a descriptive definition. But it would be severely misleading. There is almost universal agreement that police acting in this way is stepping outside its core function. When it does so too regularly, too openly, and with too little repercussions, then this is seen as a perversion of police. Obvious examples would be the Gestapo or indeed any police force of a totalitarian state.

Should we rewrite the definition of "police" so that it includes the principal role of police in a totalitarian state? I don't think so. But this de facto function of police must be mentioned in some way. Currently it seems to be swept under the carpet. Hans Adler 09:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely with Hans. We need a definition of the Police which describes what they are supposed to be for. The other stuff can be mentioned later. Perhaps in a section called something like "Abuse of power". It can talk about individual police abusing power, the police as a group closing ranks to protect their own and the abuse of the police power that the state has, by those high up in the state. Yaris678 (talk) 10:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making my point much more concisely. Hans Adler 11:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. :-) Yaris678 (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why reiterate "reduce civil disorder" instead of protection of property?

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.

The law already contains codes against "civil disorder", so by saying "enforce the law AND reduce civil disorder" one is reiterating the point. Why?. If one takes the totality of the law, one will quickly see that the number of laws aimed at protecting/regulating property (whether state or private) are much greater than those that talk about "reducing civil disorder" (in fact, the majority of crimes in our society are property-related). So if one had to reiterate a point that already exists in the law vis-a-vis law enforcement officers, "enforce the law and protect property" would make more sense than "enforce the law and reduce civil disorder" 69.228.251.134 (talk) 22:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily; in the UK at least, the police have had powers granted since at least the Public Order Act 1936 and updated as recently as the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 to set out conditions under which public demonstrations take place; in that sense, they are not "enforcing the law", they are using powers given to them rather than using the penal clauses and powers of arrest and search granted by other statutes. The major difference is the discretionary nature of that power (e.g." the Chief Constable ... may"). Rodhull andemu 22:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, you're wrong. Here are the statistics of police-recorded crime in the UK. Their own words confirm what I said:

"The majority of crimes are property related. Vandalism accounts for 26% of all BCS crime (two-thirds of which is vehicle vandalism); criminal damage accounts for one in five (20%) of crimes recorded by the police.Vehicle-related theft accounts for 14% of all BCS crime. Offences against vehicles account for 13% of recorded crime. Burglary accounts for 7% of all BCS crime and 12% of recorded crime. Violent crime represents around a fifth (20%) of BCS crime. Violence against the person also accounts around a fifth (19%) of police recorded crime."

Source: http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/statistics/statistics080a.htm 69.228.251.134 (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about different things here. I do not disagree that most crime is property-related; that's an artifact of society, and is covered by "enforcement of the law"; what I am arguing is the separation of purpose between law-enforcement by the use of penal provisions, and regulation of public order by use of discretionary powers, and no volume of statistics can make that distinction disappear. To be clear, "law enforcement" means quite simply using powers granted by Common Law or statute to control behaviours deprecated by society as a whole; and whereas some of those powers relate to public order, there is an extra layer of regulation that does not involve enforcement, at least initially. That's the distinction to be drawn here. Rodhull andemu 23:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The police's "discretionary powers" fall within the scope of the law. And even if they didn't, the distinction between the "discretionary power" the police have to "reduce civil disorder" and that which they have to protect property is one for which you have provided no evidence or explanation in the article or talk page. 69.228.251.134 (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the Queen's Peace. SGGH ^ping! 00:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Discretionary powers fall within applying the law; there is no element of "enforcement", which is an a posteriori concept compared to the imposition of conditions to public demonstrations, which is a priori. A detailed discussion of these differences, which seem to be getting more and more philosophical, and less and less encyclopedic, would be outside the scope of this article, and most certainly of its lead. However, if you can find a universally accepted definition of the role and functions of the Police suitable for the lead of such a necessarily general article, you go ahead and offer one, with sources. Unless and until you move away from the minutiae and realise that this article is couched in general terms, and stop trying to tweak it to meet your own point of view, we are not going to make much headway here. You are the editor seeking a change of wording, and therefore you should provide the sources. Arguments from first principles here are rarely helpful; neither is the attitude that "everybody knows" or that "it's obvious. It isn't, but the ball is well and truly in your court. Rodhull andemu 00:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That police powers are given by law is missing the point. It is not these laws they are enforcing. They are enforcing other laws, such as property laws. They also use powers, such as directing traffic, protests, football crowds etc., so as to prevent to prevent civil disorder. Yaris678 (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rodhullandemu, after I showed you the statistics of police-recorded crime in the UK, you yourself said "I do not disagree that most crime is property-related." And the ratio for other countries is similar:

File:Crimestatisticscountries.png

Global Trends in Crime. Source: http://www.allbusiness.com/professional-scientific/scientific-research/524294-1.html

So on the one hand, talking about the law (which police are "empowered to enforce"), we have many more codes protecting/regulating property than talking about "reduc[ing] civil disorder". And on the other, talking about ACTUAL police activity (including your "discretionary powers [that] fall within applying the law"), we have statistics showing how most police-recorded crime is property-related --once again dwarfing the reduction of "civil disorder" (for which you or Yaris678 have, by the way, provided no statistics). How then can we say that the sentence "enforce the law and protect property" doesn't make more sense or provide more verifiability than "enforce the law and reduce civil disorder"? 69.228.251.134 (talk) 01:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your table of statistics is utterly irrelevant as regards a debate about a general definition of the purpose of the police, which is what this article is about. Statistics describe what happens; they do not determine the purpose of the police, and that is the point you miss. If there is a discrepancy between the purpose and the function of the police, that is not an issue for this article, but please feel free to start a different article with your sources. I repeat; this debate is irrelevant to an overall view of what the purpose of "police" is, over time and geography, and your specific point of view does not address that. Rodhull andemu 02:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, I'd also suggest that you edit either as a IP address or as User:Mr3003nights, but not both, to avoid accusations of sockpuppetry. You've been blocked as an anonymous IP, and also under that account. It's difficult to resist the inference that you are only here to disrupt, and as an admin, I would have no qualms about blocking the both of you for a lengthy period, if not indefinitely, unless you commit to one or the other. Your call. Rodhull andemu 02:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I provided evidence. Why do you WITHOUT EVIDENCE "determine the purpose of the police" by reiterating your "reduc[ing] civil disorder" mantra? Arguments from first principles here are rarely helpful; neither is the attitude that "everybody knows" or that "it's obvious". As you said, it isn't, but NOW the ball is well and truly in your court.So please provide sources Otherwise, such lack of evidence or verifiability, will be, in your own words "trying to tweak [the article] to meet your own point of view" 69.228.251.134 (talk) 02:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen User talk:99.2.224.110 this, I've had enough of you. You are a serial disrupter of this encyclopedia, and don't belong here. All you accounts are blocked, not because I am an involved admin, but because you don't seem able to follow our most basic rules. You may email ArbCom if you like, but for the time being, your nonsense stops here and now. Rodhull andemu 02:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are unblocked. Your image is evidence, but it's not a reliable source to determine what should be in the lead; that is up to competent authorities, and extrapolating your contention from those figures is original research, pure and simple. Rodhull andemu 14:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, please stop this pointless argument and read my comment of 00:26 on 21 December 2009. It makes it perfectly obvious why there is a distinction made between enforcing the law and reducing civil disorder. Yaris678 (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while I agree with Rod that the IP's changes to the lead have been unhelpful, I disagree with his suggestion of a separate article. That would be running close to a POV fork. I would say that abuses of power (and any other discrepancies worth mentioning, between what the police are supposed to do and what they sometimes do in practice) should be given space in this article. As I suggested above, sections of the article could be devoted to the subject. Yaris678 (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't seriously suggesting that such an article would necessarily survive, only pointing out that as regards this article, these POV edits are outside its current scope. I take your comments on board but have no desire to open such a can of worms as it would inevitably end up as a battleground. Look at the trouble we've had with climate change and global warming articles recently. It ain't worth the hassle. Rodhull andemu 22:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see if I understand Yaris678; you're saying that adding "reduce civil disorder" to "enforce the law" (to describe police function) is justified because even though the law already talks about reducing civil disorder, "there is a distinction made between enforcing the law and reducing civil disorder." Now, even if you could provide evidence for this distinction, the question remains: Why is "protecting property" not more relevant and full of "distinction" given that it occupies a much greater place not only in the law, but also in police actions (as I show in the statistics on police-recorded crime)? 69.228.251.134 (talk) 03:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the UK are concerned, they revolve around protecting people, property and the queens peace - don't see them as prioritised. SGGH ^ping! 06:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SGGH, you're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Didn't you read what I posted??? The UK police THEMSELVES report the following:

"The majority of crimes are property related. Vandalism accounts for 26% of all BCS crime (two-thirds of which is vehicle vandalism); criminal damage accounts for one in five (20%) of crimes recorded by the police.Vehicle-related theft accounts for 14% of all BCS crime. Offences against vehicles account for 13% of recorded crime. Burglary accounts for 7% of all BCS crime and 12% of recorded crime. Violent crime represents around a fifth (20%) of BCS crime. Violence against the person also accounts around a fifth (19%) of police recorded crime."

Source: http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/statistics/statistics080a.htm 69.228.251.134 (talk) 07:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one is arguing that property crimes aren't a large proportion of crimes. However, you are missing the point in what I am saying. The law may well mention civil disorder but it won't say something like "Football fans of opposing teams meeting each other near to the football ground is illegal". It will say, effectively, "theft is illegal". Therefore, when the police deal with a theft they are enforcing the law, when they deal with football crowds they are not - they are reducing civil disorder. Yaris678 (talk) 10:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You ommitted that all the specifics of "theft is illegal" (e.g. Arrest person/group A when they enter into store B before time C and they grab item D etc) are likewise not mentioned in the law. And one would expect the amount of non-specificity and police discretion related to the huge body of legal codifications regulating/protecting property to exceed (and sometimes even include) that of the smaller body of those aimed at "reducing public disorder" -- particularly when the police-recorded statistics show that the majority of crimes are property related. 69.228.251.134 (talk) 12:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arresting people is not part of "theft is illegal", it is a power that police have. Police use that power as part of enforcing the law. The law they are enforcing is not the one that gives them the power of arrest, it is the one that makes theft illegal. Yaris678 (talk) 13:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Theft is against the Theft Act, however the power of arrest is only a means by which a person is dealt with - because arrests facilitate a prompt investigation, they are not a punishment. In England the power of arrest comes from S. 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act I believe. SGGH ^ping! 16:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remember your own words Yaris678:

"The law may well mention civil disorder but it won't say something like 'Football fans of opposing teams meeting each other near to the football ground is illegal'. It will say, effectively, 'theft is illegal'. Therefore, when the police deal with a theft they are enforcing the law, when they deal with football crowds they are not - they are reducing civil disorder."

So the thing you said made the "reduc[tion] of civil disorder" different from the "protection of property" (and thus worthier of mention in the lead despite its smaller body of laws and related police actions) referred to specific situations for which the law only provides general guidelines (non-specificity and police discretion) which you (incorrectly) attributed only to the "reduc[tion] of civil disorder". As I said, the same non-specificity and police discretion applies to the "protection of property". And even if you want to add or substitute this non-specificity and police discretion with laws that grant a separate power (e.g. of arrest), we could transfer your logic of

"Police use that power as part of enforcing the law. The law they are enforcing is not the one that gives them the power of arrest"

with equal validity to many actions (such as arrest, application of force etc) taken by the police in reaction to your football example ("Football fans of opposing teams meeting each other near to the football ground is illegal"). And that is even if we charitably agree that "arresting people" because "theft is illegal" was the entirety of the property-related regulation/protection I was referring to. It isn't.69.228.251.134 (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder

This is a Talk page intended for discussion about improvements to the article. It is not a debating society to thrash out facts that may only be established by reference to existing reliable sources. Any other interpretation of facts and evidence to draw a conclusion is impermissible original research. Rodhull andemu 18:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

69.228.251.134, I am trying to be nice to you and explain why it is that your arguments aren't persuading anyone. You respond by (seemingly deliberately) missing the point of what I am saying, despite me making it explicit. I don't think that is going to persuade me or anyone else so I suggest you give up. Yaris678 (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have also tried to give some insight for this IP, but I agree this has to stop. Wikipedia is not a forum, and it is not a democracy. I suggest the user behind the IP find a forum to continue his or her debate. SGGH ^ping! 20:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since Yaris678, unlike me, has provided no statistics or evidence, and since I also feel he "respond[s] by (seemingly deliberately) missing the point of what I am saying, despite me making it explicit"; and since I feel that this long debate Rodhullandemu complains about has come about precisely because of red herrings, arguments w/o evidence, account blocks and other such attempts to evade the strength of the evidence and logic I presented, I would like to request another opinion. Let's not lose focus here. The question remains:

Why reiterate "reduce civil disorder" instead of "protection of property" vis a vis police function when the former has neither greater presence in the law and police function, nor distinct features that would warrant its reiteration?

And therefore, should we simply delete the words "reduce civil disorder" from the lead, or introduce a sentence substitution/modification? 69.228.251.134 (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Reducing Civil Disorder is the key role of the Public Order Act, Anti-Social Behaviour legislation and so on. All the legislation relating to violence against the person has little relation to property. There are huge areas of police efforts which relate only to reducing violent disorder, equal in significance to those which work to fight risk to people or property. Any statistics which suggest otherwise are, frankly, incorrect because often dissuading violent disorder isn't always a quantifiable effort, or are just plain wrong. That is what the other users have been saying, and it should be the end of the matter. Ask your local police force. SGGH ^ping! 20:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SGGH, you say that we should disregard the greater number of laws and police-reported crimes related to property in favor of the the lesser number devoted to civil disorder because "dissuading violent disorder isn't always a quantifiable effort". This is an argument from ignorance -- a classic logical fallacy. However, I do encourage you to find or carry out a study in which various "local police force[s]" around the world are surveyed about this. Then you might have some evidence to counter mine, and not just your POV. Not surprisingly, the very words that Rodhullandemu had unjustifiably directed toward me, fit you like a glove:

"Arguments from first principles here are rarely helpful; neither is the attitude that "everybody knows" or that "it's obvious". It isn't, but the ball is well and truly in your court."

69.228.251.134 (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that is your first warning about your civility. You are becoming disruptive and not listening to reason. SGGH ^ping! 21:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, don't assume I don't know what I'm talking about just because I disagree with you. SGGH ^ping! 21:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's your evidence:

"The purpose of the police service is to uphold the law fairly and firmly; to prevent crime; to pursue and bring to justice those who break the law; to keep the Queen’s peace; to protect, help and reassure the community; and to be seen to do this with integrity, common sense and sound judgement." Page xxi of this document (PDF) from the Policy Studies Institute
"The duties of the police are to ensure that laws and regulations are complied with and to take the necessary steps to prevent crime." [4]

Nowhere in either of these sources (at least one of which is reliable) does it say anything about "protecting property" or "preserving hierarchical order." Mildly Mad^T_C 21:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MildlyMad, The source you give is very interesting. It contains the quote:

It is surely right that on those occasions when the enforcement of the law is not compatible with the maintenance of the public order, it is the maintenance of order which should have priority.

I think this makes it clear, not only that "law" and "order" are two separate things, but that these aims can sometimes be in conflict. Yaris678 (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mildly Mad, those kind of platitudes about police function--found even in the worst totalitarian states-- do not constitute evidence. Statistics and reports of the kind I presented do. Yaris678, in that quote you mention from the UK police, we must rely on the only evidence-based interpretation of the slogan "maintenance of public order" (as I said, the word "order" has 56 dictionary definitions). Since the UK police themselves report that the majority of crimes are property related. Source: http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/statistics/statistics080a.htm any sensible interpretation will conclude that "maintenance of public order" above the law, largely means protection of property--as when police shot desperate people (so-called "looters") in the aftermath of Katrina to protect property under the slogan of "maintaining order" 69.228.251.134 (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This guy is a troll with a point to prove, and entertaining him just results in eventual incivility. I'd give it up now if I were you. ninety:one 22:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree. He's just going on about the same stuff again and again and deliberately misunderstanding everything that is said to him. Yaris678 (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third'd. It reeks of WP:TRUTH and WP:OR. Unless the IP has any concrete suggestions (incorporating non-WP:OR reliable sources) for improving the article, we are done here. Mildly Mad^T_C 22:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Police function: platitudes vs. evidence

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.

I'll quote from the "original research" entry:

"To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."

I find it outrageous that some editors here will take platitudes about police function (e.g. "our mission is to bla bla") as proof!!! Such interpretations/conclusions, unless backed by evidence, THEMSELVES constitute WP:OR and WP:TRUTH -- often more extreme than usual if the platitudes come from an interested party. To give you a rather obvious example that we can all understand, if I were to cite the platitudes of police departments of say, fascist Italy, as "proof" of their function and disregard actual statistics/data related to their function, you would (quite justifiably) not take me seriously--especially if I insisted that anybody disregarding these platitudes is engaging in original research. That'd be turning reality on its head. Same when dealing with, say, giving credibility (as Rodhullandemu did) to the 1316 monarchical (read totalitarian) government decision to describe police function with rosy, euphemistic (and laughable) epithets like "peace officers" or "maintaining the Queen's Peace". This remains true when dealing with any government platitudes in modern western states. The burden of proof should be on the platitudes of authority figures, not on reliable statistics and data. These, as I showed in the last posts, overwhelmingly show that legal codifications and police function/discretionary powers deal primarily with protection/regulation of property. Any statement that leans toward platitudes as opposed to this evidence, constitutes WP:OR and WP:TRUTH. This includes, as I proved, reiterating "reduce civil disorder" instead of protection of property when describing police function. 69.228.251.134 (talk) 03:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please also read WP:FRINGE. Consensus is clearly against you and all of your "evidence" so far has constituted original synthesis. If you can provide a source that directly states what you are arguing, we can add the information. Otherwise, please stop. Mildly Mad^T_C 03:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That guy's still at it? My guess is he got a speeding ticket once and wasn't happy about having to pay the fine and have his insurance rates go up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know what that guy thinks is wrong with protecting property. Or is he one of those who believes people shouldn't have the right to own stuff? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Conservative proposal

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.

Mildly Mad says "If you can provide a source that directly states what you are arguing, we can add the information."

OK, the police-recorded evidence I've provided that

"The majority of crimes are property related" Source: http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/statistics/statistics080a.htm confirmed worldwide here: Global Trends in Crime. Source: http://www.allbusiness.com/professional-scientific/scientific-research/524294-1.html warrants at the very least, the following addition to the lead:

The police are people empowered to enforce the law, combat property crime and civil disorder.

This seems like a conservative proposal we can all agree with.

69.228.251.134 (talk) 04:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with protecting property? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well, to make it more succinct I used the word "combat" to use it before both terms "property crime" and "civil disorder" (that way we don't need to use another word "reduce"). And since "reducing civil disorder" was preferred (deemed more concrete) than "maintaining order" by another editor, I thought the present proposal preferable to this other one I thought of, which reverts to the the earlier ambiguities of the word "order":

The police are people empowered to enforce the law, protect property and civil order.

Though this latter proposal still seems better than the present lead. 69.228.251.134 (talk) 04:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would read better as "...protect property and preserve (or maintain) civil order." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accept as per Baseball Bugs Previously, I would have argued that "protecting property" is already covered under "enforcing the law" or "maintaining civil order." But, in the interest of ending this dispute and WP:GOODFAITH, I accept the proposal (not to imply that I WP:OWN the article) on the condition that it is not eventually twisted around to imply that one of the functions of police is to perpetuate some sort of social hierarchy. Mildly Mad^T_C 05:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, since the article can now only be edited by registered accounts, I will log in as mr3003nights to introduce the consensus edit. 69.228.251.134 (talk) 07:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are happy with the edit you have made, then we can draw a line under all this discussion. SGGH ^ping! 22:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes --Guerillero (talk) 06:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

image:Politiabmw1.jpg

Any particular reason why a picture of an American police car was replaced by one from Romania? I'm not really bothered either way, but looking at the first few pictures, you could now be forgiven for thinking that the Police are confined to central and eastern Europe. Yaris678 (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it's an attempt to counter any American-centric focus in the article. Photographs of police are fairly common so I think we should be fairly selective. Dozens of photos of police cars aren't necessary given that most people know what one looks like - they would be better served in the articles on that respective country's force or state's force. I think we should keep only the best photographs of police related topics on this article. Is there one of Peel? SGGH ^ping! 22:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overview section

This section is superfluous IMO, there is nothing there that can't be in a history section. Overview sections are like super-lead sections, and I propose this be deleted and useful content relocated to the lead or the history sections as appropriate. SGGH ^ping! 11:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Yaris678 (talk) 12:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

messed up

there is something messed up with the section on the founding of the London police —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mph703 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Legitimized" use of force?

There certainly seems to me to be something wrong with saying, as a generality, that "police" can use "legitimized" force. The word legitimized is my concern. I submit that "authorized" would be a better substitute. "Legitimized" carries with it unnecessary question-begging baggage regarding the legitimacy of the ruling authority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.59.97.195 (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Police Software for PC, about search criminal offender

This software must work with connection with satellites and GSM network and have also a server that must search photo of criminal offender or save voice from the first time that hear criminal offender's voice. This softwere must work looks like below: - Software connect to the sattelites and GSM network and automatic listen about criminal offender's voice if talk at any telephone or mobile phone(This software automaticly must boost or lower voice for normalisation of a sound for clear sense). Also, this software, begin search of this criminal offender's photo if have in Police server's. Critical point about this softwere is: If not photo about this criminal offender, this softwere must record(save it to server or to nestle voice in PC memory at any time so must be optional in this point) this sound also and search his(her) voice from nearly any open phone or mobile phone(softwere must sense criminal offender's voice at any phone)...

netiq69 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Netiq69 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Syncronisation problem when search criminal offender, between Hobble and PC Softwere

I saw this situation on our country's (Turkey) CNBC-E tv channel's american criminal serie on TV. Situation is: Hobble see man's face at full time and PC Softwere tracking man's face. But problem about in my estimation is that, Hobble's image speed is low and PC Police Softwere face tracking is slow too. My idea is to make one program in Assambly program language that tracking criminal offender's face in full speed Hobble's image at full time. Solution about Hobble's image see is looks like a critical problem but, if electronically boost speed of electromagnetic wave, will fully solution about Hobble's image sending image signal to Police centre. I thing that my softwere idea is a full solution. So solution about Hobble is secondary problem that at any time must make full speed image see face of criminal offender: Secound solution that about Hobble is electronical solution, I want to write it again: Must boost electromagnetical wave speed in fixed Hobble's electronical PCB's. Electronical Enigeneer knows that this must with high frequency image sending from Hobble.

netiq69 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Netiq69 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Idea about Police PC Softwere about search criminal offender's face if it is differend in next situation (mustages, nervous face e.t.c.)

This software may be must "add on" on program. This "add on" must sense with a 3D software method. Face of criminal offender must search with 3D spiders web. This adding help to sense probability about criminal offender's fixed face options.

netiq69 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Netiq69 (talk • contribs) 12:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is for discussing the article only. If you are just plugging your own ideas on software solution you must do it elsewhere. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Power Restrictions - requires amendment

The section on "Power Restrictions" contains a couple of misleading ambiguities with respect to mentions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which applies only to England & Wales: Scotland has its own quite separate and distinct civil and criminal legal systems. 217.169.14.81 (talk) 05:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please review and improve on these changes which partly address your concern. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About Criminal Investigation

I find that "Criminal Investigation" is redirected to this entry. So I think this redirect is improper and the two entries should be separated. Because the job of police is broad, much more than just criminal investigation. Further, those who take part in criminal investigation are not necessarily police. Private detectives can also do the same job. So it will be misleading of this redirect.--Aronlee90 (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Like the user above, I too was redirected from "criminal investigation" to here, which is wrong. In countries with an inquisitorial legal system, the court is actively involved in the investigation as part of the court process before the trial. Best regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, "Criminal Investigation" should not be redirected to this page. "Criminal Investigation" should have its own page as it is an independent science as well as being a discipline practiced by a wide range of criminal investigators. The topic of criminal investigations certainly has enough information and sources to create an article. I also believe the topic is noteworthy enough to have its own article. If the page were to be redirected anywhere forensic science would be more appropriate than to its current redirect of the subheading Detectives in the Police article. This implies that only detectives conduct criminal investigations.