# Talk:Norwegian Police Service

The section below was added to the article in this edit by Daimonion (talk · contribs). As I see this as more of a news item and perhaps even a POV edit (it reads much like a press release), I'm moving the text here for possible discussion of whether (or how) this could be included in the article. This is not the first protest in Norway by disgruntled police officers, so perhaps some historical survey of past protests and the role of the trade unions could be presented? And, of course, a discussion of the contended issues would be relevant.


### Police crisis in Norway
Over 4 000 uniformed members of the Norwegian Police Service paraded the main streets of Oslo in a protest march, 25th March 2009. The police appealed outside the Norwegian Parliament, and demanded the acting Norwegian Ministry of Justice and the Police, Trond Giske to come out and comment upon the police charges of a current police crisis in Norway. Knut Storberget has been at a sick leave for some weeks, but is expected to attend to his desk at Monday 30th March 2009, and the police force labor union, Politiets Fellesforbund, expects him to meet for a dialog with the police. The leader of Politiets Fellesforbund, Arne Johannessen have declared that the police force will not surrender in these matters. He stated that Norway are under dictatorship, and that the rebellion will continue.

__meco (talk) 23:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It´s my first attempts to contribute to your sites, as I use so dependently in all my daily work.
I hope you will look upon this case, and find a way to put it out again, since the police forces protest march was an historical event. I was actually there and saw the whole thing, and since the police themselves is calling their upraise as a revolt/rebellion against a dictature government, I think it´s important that people all over the world can read about the fact.
I´m sorry, but I don´t know how to put the referances correct yet, but I will try to learn in a rush - before the news articles disappear...
You´re more tham welcome to edit/add/delite what you want, but please put it out again.
If this was happening in another Europe Country, the world press would be all over it, and even if it´s political, it´s still facts.
http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/artikkel.php?artid=551889
- Daimonion  Daimonion (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not so sure this is such a unique event, especially seen in an international perspective. Also in a Norwegian context I seem to recall that there have been mass mobilizations similar to this one in the past, although perhaps the number of 4,000 protesting police officers may be record high. I have made some suggestions above about how to include this in the article, i.e. by putting it in a historical context. You may also seek some advice at the law enforcement WikiProject on how to present this in the most correct way. Other participants of WikiProject Norway may also be able to provide more help than I am at present time. __meco (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, I will do!  Daimonion (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
As more editors have involved themselves in whether or not this section is fit for the article, there have been a few back and forth edits. I have once again removed the section as I find we should reach a consensus here before making more disruptions to the article. __meco (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Meco. The section is clearly POV, representing the agenda of the Norwegian Policemens Union, falsly presenting the 4000 men demonstrating acting as members of the police force, whilst they participated as members of the union.
Furthermore the section is clearly unproportional within the current state of the article. There are several things that could be done to this article: Currently, the article does not describe the uniform of the norwegian police, does not describe the education of the norwegian policemen, it does not contain any statistics on police activity and crime in Norway. Neither does it discuss the role of the police used against striking workers in the 1920's or their dark history during The Holocaust in Norway. Summa summarum: There are several relevant and important ways to expand this article, but a biased presentation of the recent actions by the Policemens Union is not what this article needs. --Orland (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, there is a discussion about this in WikiProject Law Enforcement site as well, since I was advised to ask them. The police union actually have close to FULL police force as members, so it´s difficult to separate the force and the union. The only bias I have in this matter, is that I think it should be possible to search up explaination about this case/situation. It have to be admitted that either way, force or union, it´s not a daily life event, at least not in Northern Europe. I will try to re-write the text, and in a more objective way, but then I really would appreciate a discussion BEFORE deleting again, since this is starting to look a little bit like cencourship. Daimonion (talk) 07:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

From what Orland writes it looks almost like we need to have all or at least several of these lacking points in place before we should add a section which includes the recent protests. I suspect that is not his actual position. I am certainly agreeable to having this mentioned in the article as long as we are able to give it a context. And even with an appropriate context far less than was originally included would suffice. When this article becomes a Good Article and we start to see the need for a separate article on Labour disputes within the Norwegian police force (not very soon) should so much detail be presented. Another place for this would be Labour disputes in Norway (or some such article). __meco (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This is turning out to be a seriously difficult task, above the standards approved for in a lot of other sections...Take a look at these photos and tell me again this is not something worth a line or two. The text in the banner, first image: "...makes the police criminals/offenders" and last image: "Yes to democracy, no to regulations dictatorship". Daimonion (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't this go into an article based on the Norwegian article Politiets Fellesforbund? __meco (talk) 07:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Is that really necessary? I´m little bit afraid to touch it anymore, and edit one full article about background and all this. Since close to all members of the police force is in this union anyway? It was meant as an update in the police buisness, which is ceirtainly is. Daimonion (talk) 08:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
If Daimonion can't distinguish between a policeman acting as a member of a labour union, defending his own interests; and a policeman acting as a law enforces, defending the interests of the community, then someone else should obviously write this stuff. --Orland (talk) 07:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Don't forget that this whole "labour union" arguement in itself is POV. One mustn't loose sight of ones own POV when examining anothers. Why not just put in something about the events, stripped of as much POV in any direction as possible, and leave it at that. Any "opinions" on the topic can be inserted only if they are direct quotes from reliable sources, therefore it is involved parties POV that we are quoting, rather than inserting our own as un-""-ed fact. SGGH ping! 10:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The following needs correction and should be made gender neutral: "a police officer may arm himself and anyone under his command". Gender neutrality is covered in the manual of style under WP:Gender. 'He or she' has been used already in this article, and it should also apply to this statement. The same meaning contained in this statement can be conveyed through gender neutral language, as it was in: "Norwegian police do not carry firearms on a daily basis; they keep them locked down in the patrol cars, and if need arises they have to get permission by the police commissioner or someone authorized by him or her" One possible correction may be: "If there is no time to contact a superior, police officers may arm themselves and anyone under their command." Such pluralization is suggested in 'Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language', as a possible alternative to both gender specific language and usage of a singular they. More importantly, editors, according to WP:Gender, should seek all alternatives to gender specific language so long as they do not undermine'clarity and precision'. Such an example of pluralization is given in Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language: "not “A player starts by taking up his position”, but “Players start by taking up their positions”). Pluralization of the sentence would be the same as the example aforementioned, and as it does not undermine clarity and precision, and therefore there is no reason to retain gender-specific language when there is a logical and grammatically correct alternative.

It's very odd that this should be the first section of the article, emphasizing the use of firearms, which historically has had a very subdued role in the Norwegian police service. __meco (talk) 07:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Helicopters/aviation - how many (if any) do they have? If any where are they based and of what type are they? 2.25.36.38 (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
One police helicopter, at least until recently. One can Google "politihelikopter" and "Norway". There was criticism of the final choice of helicopter — and its configuration (a weak engine — when loaded with in its "supposed" configuration - gave it an allegedly low radius of operation.
I haven't seen references of allegations of corruption, relating to this purchase. (But I think I saw notable allegations of corruption/irregularities printed in notable publications, about the purchase of pistols for police. I think I read that the chosen pistol was modified in the field during the testing of "candidate pistols". Corruption/irregularities during procurement of patrol cars, have also been an issue, if I am not mistaken.)--85.196.118.210 (talk) 13:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

What info from this table should be mentioned in the article?

The horse accident should not be mentioned in this article, but the article about the funeral procession of King Olav. The traffic deaths are sad, but not notable in this context.--85.196.118.210 (talk) 11:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Are there any references of notable criticism regarding the stationing of that now deceased policeman at Utøya in 2011. 
I just can not see how a policeman who is working at Politiets utlendingsenhet, can be among the best of policemen when it comes to crowd control at political rallies. 
Are there any references as to him getting a supposedly "cozy assignment" because he belonged to the family of the Crown Princess, rather than him being particularly qualified for personal security and crowd control. (All Norwegian police officers receive some very basic training in such field, before they start as regular police officers.)
Are there any references about AUF requesting him in particular, to be the policeman at Utøya?
Has there been any notable questions raised about what and why "private paid" («privatbetalt overtid») overtime occured in this instance, rather than regular pay and regular hours/regular shifts?
Any other links than this one [1] ?--85.196.118.210 (talk) 12:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Norwegian Police are serving in Afghanistan. 
The article, Policeman lost security clearance after Afghanistan criticism. — Politidirektoratet refuses to comment 
has a good fact box with info that we don't have.--Aksstar (talk) 10:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Norwegian Police Service/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: QatarStarsLeague (talk · contribs) 19:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
During a terse pre-review perusing, I didn't find a major structural deficiencies of problems, all sources seemed to be reliable, no edit wars going on, or anything else entailing the impetus for a quick-fail. This being my first review, I may need some extra time to consummately review the article. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


### The Review
1. I will be conducting this review section-by-section, in a serialized fashion, starting with the lead:


### Lead & Infobox
#### Lead
I fixed two little typographical errors in the lead, and everything else is fine. I do have a suggestion however; when you mention the police jurisdiction of Svalbard, might you want to add Jan Mayen. It will not affect the outcome of this review, but it would efface any reader's potential question regarding the matter.

The reason I did not add Jan Mayen there is that it (unlike Svalbard) has no permanent population, making it a rather trivial issue in my opinion. Arsenikk (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Really, not only did I learn something new, I now believe that, yes, it would be trivial. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 03:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


#### Infobox
1 typo fixed, everything else sufficient.


### History
Four typos fixed, all refs appear good, and the images are good for usage, so this section will pass.


### Structure
All images are good, but for the for the prose...
*"The directorate is led by the National Police Commissioner, who since 2012 has been Odd Reidar Humlegård." Please consider adding comma before/after "since 2012"

Added. Arsenikk (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
*"The National Criminal Investigation Service is a national unit which works with organized and serious crime." Serious crime is what exactly? Violent crime?

The source doesn't mention specifically, but (this is my experience from media) there are no strict rules as to what cases they would be involved in. They would probably investigate a murder, but a rape would normally be handled by the police district. I agree that "serious" is a vague term, but it would probably require two paragraphs to explain it accurately.
Fair enough, point dismissed. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 03:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC) 
Arsenikk (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
*"...although they also assist police district in extraordinary events." Plural form of district please, as well as a clarification on "extraordinary events".

Specified. Arsenikk (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Everything else suffices.


### Jurisdiction and capabilities
Everything prose related looks great here, the images are fine for use, and the refs seem to be suitable.


### Investigation and prosecution
Some issues here...
"The director general makes decisions to prefer indictment in cases with a maximum penalty of twenty-one years and certain other serious crimes." Prefer, what exactly does that mean. Is the pre-meditated intent to indict? Also, "and certain other serious crimes" what?

English legal jargon is not my strong side and this what my dictionary recommended me to write, but I have changed the wording. As for "certain other serious crimes", this refers to chapters 8, 9 and 10 and sections 135, 140, 142 and 144 in the Penal Law, which involves a wide range of crimes which would be too long to mention here, largely because the have little in common except being "serious".
I see, issue fixed in that case. Arsenikk (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
"If the investigations lead to positive finding, minor cases may be resolved by police penalty notice, settlement by a conflict resolution board and withdrawal of prosecution." While major ones would not be?

Rephrased; major issues are discussed in the next paragraph.
Good then. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 03:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)Arsenikk (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Other than this, all good, including images.


### Education and employment
The prose and content here is stellar, not an issue in sight. Images all check up fine. I will be stopping here for today, and at this point, the article has some outstanding issues. I think it will be pragmatic to wait until they are acknowledged/repaired before we advance in the review.QatarStarsLeague (talk) 03:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the comments. Arsenikk (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


### Equipment
As all prior issues have been addressed, the review will continue.
"Arming requires permission from the chief of police or someone designated by him." Arming; is this referring to the armament of a police force, the choice of firearms, or the armament of an individual officer?

Specified. Arsenikk (talk) 09:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
"Specially-trained forces use Diemaco C8 assault rifles." Although I do not require it, it would surely be beneficial to elaborate on this, by listing some/all of the forces that use the C8s.

Specified. Arsenikk (talk) 09:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Everything else is good.


### Conclusion
As far as my initial review goes, I think my requisite, abecedarian knowledge of the reviewing process has been enough to carry out a consummate review. I say with much pleasure that as soon as these latest few issues/peccancies are fixed, the article is ready for GA classification. As soon as these issues are fixed, I will pass the article. Congratulations! QatarStarsLeague (talk) 04:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

[moved from Talk:Norwegian Police Service/GA1 by Arsenikk (talk) at 11:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)]
I'm no regular to GAN reviews, and I'm not going to make an attempt at reviewing the article in full. I will limit myself to point out two areas which I believe are too cursorily detailed in this article, I believe critically so with respect to potential GA status. The first being the history of Norwegian police. I note that history has been forked off as a separate article, however I also notice that this fork is hardly any more substantive than the original article's history section (in fact, it seems to be identical to it). My second grievance is the utter absence of criticism, conflicts or scandals that have involved and centered on the Norwegian Police Service. The article at a glance, to me, looks pretty scanty for a GA candidate. I have given a couple of reasons for why this may be so. I do not think the article merits that GA quality stamp of approval. __meco (talk) 09:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
The length of the history sub-article is not relevant to the review of this article; the history article was created so that in the future, additional history concerning the police could be placed there instead of clogging the main article with less important history. As for your concern as to lack of criticism, some is included, such as in the equipment section (ICT) and some major historical issues are mentioned (pre-1980s organizational structure and Torp incident for instance). I would be very glad if you could come with specific examples of the types of scandals you would like included, keeping in mind our policy on NPOV and guidelines on recentism. As for your evaluation of the article not passing, the good article criteria state "it addresses the main aspects of the topic [and] it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail", which I do not believe the article violates. Keeping in mind that this is an encyclopedia, the focus should be on how the police are organized and function, rather than on how some people want it to be organized.
If you do not plan on reviewing this article, you should not have created this subpage, as it is now marked as "under review" and no-one else is going to come by and review it. Your comments are relevant and most welcome, but they should probably have been placed on the talk page instead (a reviewer should always check the talk page for comments before reviewing). If you do not plan on reviewing I would suggest we move this discussion to the talk page and delete the subpage. Arsenikk (talk) 11:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
On that last point i apologize for placing the comment in the wrong place. I hope somebody can fix this by some kind of workaround. __meco (talk) 11:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
No problem, I can fix it. As for the first, you're a bit older than me so perhaps you can recall some older police issues that I cannot remember. I'll try to add some additional comments on the Gjørv Report for instance when I have some more time, hopefully this evening. Arsenikk (talk) 11:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
What immediately comes to mind was the chronic state of war within Oslo Police District during Willy Haugli's leadership in the 1980s, i.e. between Iron Willy as he was termed and the union for the police officers. Part of that, perhaps the most heated exchanges, happened in relation to the establishment of the Beredskapstroppen where a higly respected officer, Torleif Vika, was forced to resign. __meco (talk) 09:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

In the reference, it didn't state which exact H&K they use, only that it's 9mm. I've seen someone in a forum write they issue both P30 and P30L, and then I found this:
http://www.tactical-life.com/firearms/heckler-koch-p30l-9mm/
I think either it should be corrected or it should state both if a proper source for them using P30 exists. 2.110.44.130 (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

In 2018 the Norwegian Police Comission started the process of a new program where 500 Police Officers were equipped with a EDC called the Taser X2. This program or test would last for 2 years as a way to either adapt new policices or see if the Norwegian Police Force would benefit from it. The program officially initiated on the 1st of January 2019 where 500 police officers throughout the country were equipped with a taser X2. 
This taser is able to deploy or discharge 2 cartridges. It delivers a stun to whomever it may hit for around 5 seconds before ending. Two individuals can be tased at one time.
Please update this. You can also add in that Police Officers are now equipped with hand held ipad's which they use for MDT usage and every other usage they need with it.

Please update responsible minister to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Anundsen. Grete Faremo has been out of office for almost two years.
Kriberg (talk) 07:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 Done Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 13:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

no source nor date is given there are 188 per 100000 List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_number_of_police_officers#List  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 (talk) 04:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC) 

This article is severely outdated and desperately need an update. 46.9.28.123 (talk) 10:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

The name of the Director of Police is outdated; since 2019 the Director is Marie Benedicte Bjørnland. 193.69.143.3 (talk) 07:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 13:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)