Talk:Security police

Rewrite

Wow, was this a complete page rewrite. AND it lost out on the original definition.--68.32.11.74 17:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to 'be bold' and do a complete rewrite to separate legal authority from anatomy. The distinction between security police and other police agencies is 1) their focus on protecting a specific chunk of property and 2) the differences in their legal authority, which have prompted some of the chunky rewrites by serving security police which are incomprehensible to everyone else 71.141.252.44 (talk) 00:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC) 17 July 2009[reply]

Term/title

Needs some headings or something to make it more reader friendly and wiki. QUESTION: Does this include "company police"? For example Henry Ford's strikebreaking thugs? Is this term in common usage in the US? I watch a lot of Yankee TV and movies, and its not a familiar term. Seems to be a catch all for non-regular cops.Bobanny 08:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - see my further comments below. Peet Ern (talk) 05:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS - Some in line references to where the term is used might help. Peet Ern (talk) 05:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

Although the length of this entry suggests it is an article rather than a stub, I have given it that tag because this needs a complete overhaul. At present, it is little more than scattered bits of information that are not clearly connected to the topic. Some specific problems:

More than half of the article is about Los Angeles organizations, the contents of which has little to do with the topic "Security Police." E.g., California State law regarding peace officers working off duty as security guards.
Sentences such as By 1993 when RTD became MTA. are not complete sentences. Numerous other technical writing errors make this a confusing read.
Two full paragraphs are devoted to the MTA police, which "is a defunct agency" according to the article. If it's defunct, why is it even here (and what does RTD stand for)? Perhaps if there were a general history section, its mention might be warranted, but not in the current structure.
The article goes into obscure details, such as the structure and training of specific agencies' officers, yet does not clearly define what "Security Police" refers to. They are, for example, "usually" employed by government. So what makes them different from any other policing body? Why is the MTA police included and not the LAPD? Conversely, what makes security police different from run of the mill security guards?

There are other problem areas, but the above suggestions could serve as a starting point for making this article comprehensible. The absence of sources to me suggests that finding sources to base this article on should be the first step in making it an acceptable entry.Bobanny 17:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go through this and take a look at it. Since most of us in the LE WikiProject are UK Constable or Special, and I seem to be the only person who's career security, I'll see if I can figure out what's going on and broaden it a bit.

I can either start a rewrite or write the answers to the questions posed above here... Suggestions? Pyrogen 15:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, a rewrite would make more sense to me because it appears that the problems have to do with the topic not being conceived with much thought in the first place, and now it lacks clarity and structure. Defining security police is the first place to start, but that would be hard to do with what's currently in the article.Bobanny 17:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did another pass on this and it hurts my head. I'll take at it soon enough, though. Ow, whoever wrote this just mangled things together, it looks like. Pyrogen 21:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hear ya. It looks like it was excess that was carved off from other articles - someone's delinquent daughter article >;) Bobanny 03:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It still looks like a mangle. In my opinion it is bad enough to be labelled negatively encylcopedic. The term security police on reading this seems to more idiomatic and coloquial than anything formal. There is as far as I am aware no general type of LEA of security police. There are public safety and by-law enforcement agencies such as transit police, and protective security agencies providing close personal protection, etc.

An appropriate dewrite might be to turn the article into a history of the term security police, if it really is a notable one, and refer to main articles about LEAs which might have been referred to as security police from time to time.

Peet Ern (talk) 04:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tag removal

How do you know that security police do not exist elsewhere? →James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 23:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wackenhut

Wackenhut is also an example of security police. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 01:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't need a re-write; needs a DELETE!

This is an incredibly confusing article that wends its way through personal opinion to bias, taking a short detour through nonsense.

I worked in one of the law enforcement agencies named for over 25 years (U.S.). Not once did we ever refer to ourselves as "Security Police." Not once did anyone else in law enforcement refer to us as "Security Police." Not once were we referred to by media, politicians or the public as "Security Police." There was no law that declared us to be or set us apart as "Security Police."

My first reaction was that this was a nonsensical attempt at creating a classification that wasn't necessary. The more I read into it, I realized that this article seems to be a misguided attempt to take a UK local term and somehow give it world-wide meaning by bootstrapping other agency roles to fit a narrow definition. And, the suggestion that Wackenhut should be included in this definition not only further complicates things (how can civilian non-police be considered as police of any sort?) simply boggles the mind.

Can we just close this down as being too ambitious a definition stretch and simply not needed? 68.32.246.239 (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree – The term "security policy" brings to my mind "secret police", like the kind a repressive government uses to suppress its citizens. Or perhaps the religious police of Saudi Arabia and other countries. The word "police" means "sworn officers of the law". Those that monitor shops and sports venues are "security guards". Security police seems to be an attempt to blend the two, but I'm not really buying it. However, the article should not be deleted. The right editor, with knowledge of the subject, can still make something of this.  Senator2029 ➔ “Talk”  00:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly what I've done to the UK section...

"Security Police" is a term that has no legal basis in United Kingdom law or nomenclature. Special police force does, but we already have an article on that. The only possible exception to this is the Northern Ireland Security Guard Service who are civilian security officers that are armed and attested as special constables within Northern Ireland. Even in this case the term 'police' is stretched to its thinest point of definition as the personnel of the Northern Ireland Security Guard Service are not employed to 'police' things, they are employed to provide security and by way of an addendum have the privileges of a special constable almost entirely for the purpose of avoiding issues of legality surrounding the carrie of firearms. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 23:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Essay-like

This article is full of irrelevant POV forks about what may or may not be considered "security police" it should confine itself to describing only organisations that describe themselves as security police, as an exact phrase, or to a history of the term. At the moment this is basically a rambling treatise, overly padded with irrelevant trivia about police organisations that in some cases are missing even the most tenuous link to the subject at hand. In any case its claims should be backed up by reliable sources rather than the author's own personal narrative. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 23:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is total WP:OR and should be deleted. Period. oknazevad (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. I've edited this article a few times and have noticed what a free-for-all it is. Some articles just lend themselves to being big blogs of unsourced half-truths. Not sure how to fix it. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting Re-Write/Splitting the Article

This article has bothered me for years. I’ve re-written the intro, although it’s still essentially pure WP:OR. In the meantime, I at least tried to write it so it’s a bit more concise and encyclopedic-sounding. Any assistance with writing or — more importantly — gathering sources, would be immensely appreciated.

I do not believe that this article should be deleted. However, apart from the WP:OR issues — which I believe can be overcome — the other big issue — and the reason this article was discussed to be deleted years back — is the fact that “security police” can be divided into two groups; Sworn LEOs whom essentially function as security guards and state intelligence-security apparatuses.

In the past, the general sentiment was to either delete this article completely or to make it solely about the aforementioned intelligence-security apparatuses.

My contention is that we should keep this article about ‘traditional’ security police, and create a new article of “State security police” or something along those lines. We could outline specific agencies that often use/are referred to by this term.

Thoughts? MWFwiki (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should "The number of sworn police officers in Sweden were" be replaced with "The number of sworn police officers in Sweden was"?

Apokrif (talk) 11:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]