lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Dark figure of crime

message: For info, I've proposed a merger of 3-into-1. Though this article also overlaps in content I'd suggest keeping it separate as an article on perceptions of crime statistics. What do others think? --VSerrata 12:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this should remain a separate article. I note that this article deals with unreported crime. That is crime that is not reported in the crime statistics. While the Crime statistics article deals with crime that comes to the attention of police and hence researchers, the reasons why people do not report are probably beter dealt with in this article. Another article that discusses people's perceptions of crime should not be included in this article but be kept as a separate article, as perceptions are often created or changed by the way crime is publicised and reported by the news media. Thus a perceptions of crime is not really the the result of reporting the dark figure of crime, because that crime is not generally reported about, but by the (over?) reporting and exaggeration of known crime. -- Cameron Dewe 08:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger of [[Crime index]], [[Crime rate]] and [[Crime statistics]]
Talk:Avengers/Ultraforce

message: It seems odd to have two articles on this. If, as seems correct, the first part is Ultraforce/Avengers, then should both bits be merged there? I don't know the story but assume they continue on from each other? Rather than two skimpy articles we could work to make one solid one. That said I may have the wrong end of the stick. (Emperor (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge?
Talk:Enforcement discretion

message: * I'm going to merge some of the content and refs now. Will merge whole article soon hearing no good reason why to keep separately. They mean basically the same thing but "selective enforcement" gets 700,000 odd google hits while "enforcement discretion" gets about 80,000. On books.google it is 90,000 to 18,000. CarolMooreDC 19:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge to [[Selective enforcement]]
Talk:Frameup

message: In what ways is a frameup a crime by itself besides perjury and interfering with an investigation.98.240.196.218 (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal distinction

message: According to Merriam-Webster and the Random House dictionary, the preferred (M-W) or even only (Random) spelling is frame-up. --Austrian (talk) 09:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Hyphen

message: Do we really need all those movie references?  The links to imdb are not really good sources, as (at least in some cases) they do not even mention "frame-up". --Austrian (talk) 09:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Movie references

message: I agree about the movie references, and further there should be more real life examples given.  This is something that happens all the time to different degrees... Whether it is a stupid cop helping an attractive female exaggerate an accusation, that infamous DA who framed tons of people for child molestation charges, or the Tennessee politicians requesting the framing of enemies on false drug charges. (They are widely known to do this and have very odd crime statistics and extreme levels of corruption. http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-05-11/the-most-corrupt-states/#)
The most heinous instances should definitely be listed here.  It almost seems as if this page is trying to give the false impression that nothing like this ever happens.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.130.192 (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real instances 

message: Shouldnt the British crime of Perverting the course of justice be linked QueenAlexandria (talk) 10:21, 10 Dec 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Seven years later... I have added Perverting the course of justice to the See Also section. Muzilon (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: See Also

message: This list is basically a CIA propaganda tool. Are we really saying there are so few UNCONTESTED frame-ups in history that such a list must be populated with contentious, POV trash? Kylie Moore-Gilbert, for example, learned to speak Persian in so-called Israel after first attending a "Zionist leadership conference" as a young woman. This is to say nothing of being married to an "Israeli". From Iran's perspective, she's a spy, end of. Are we really to pretend this charge isn't at least prima facie evidence to bolster Iran's claim? Ugh. 76.70.97.144 (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Notable"...yeah, right.
Talk:International Association of Chiefs of Police

message: --KerrySully1213 (talk) 17:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's okay to add info about the other sections, but might be good to balance the organizational details with other aspects, like history of the organization. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: I noticed that the page is missing several other sections of the IACP. The Psychological Services Section is detailed, but many other sections exist, too. Please see http://www.theiacp.org/About/Governance/Sections/tabid/95/Default.aspx. Can we add these to the page?
Talk:Legal observer

message: ::I removed the WP:LE tag because it seems that this article is about an organization charged with observing law enforcement actions, and not about law enforcement itself. If anyone disagrees, please replace the tag, but i believe there is probably a better Wikiproject out there for this article.EMT1871 03:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:LE tag removal

message: The tone of this article is confusing. In the first paragraph, it suggest that legal observers is a general term that describes anyone who is engaged in the activity of recording violations of civil rights during demonstrations. However, later in the article it suggests that Legal Observers have mandates, specific goals and commitments to various human rights conventions. One paragraph suggests its a general concept and the other sounds like it's a recognized group with clear membership criteria.
In light of this, I want to remove the third, fourth, and fifth paragraph from this article. In light of the fact that this article has had a heading for the past two years stating that references are needed, I think this editing is warrented. However, I am willing to discuss this changes before handDivaNtrainin (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing this article to remove  

message: You are well come to contribute and improve article legal awareness.
Mahitgar (talk) 12:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: legal awareness
Talk:Peelian principles

message: The link for reference #6 - "Sir Robert Peel and the new Metropolitan Police" - is broken. Slarrab (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Slarrab, the link is working now. It was an issue with the National Archives website which they fixed. Whizz40 (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Broken link

message: An I.P. made this edit to Robert's Rules of Order today.  My read is that it's a piece of (fairly amusing, frankly) trolling, but I thought I'd solicit views before reverting.  Does anybody have any views as to whether somebody searching for this page could realistically end up at Robert's Rules of Order? Steve Smith (talk) 23:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree there is probably no need for the hatnote. Whizz40 (talk) 06:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: IP here. (Same editor, but different IP address because my router shifts cyclically). The reason I added the disambiguation is because I remember the "Peelian principles" as an important piece of history from reading an article, and I could only remember it by the name "Robert", from its purported originator, Robert Peel. I was unable to find it until several months later, when I stumbled across the name "Peelian Principles". A link like this would have helped me find it at a more appropriate time. Before I realized the correct name, I simply remembered and referred to it as "Robert's rules of policing". Regards. 116.216.30.55 (talk) 12:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambig hatnote at [[Robert's Rules of Order]] 

message: "Sources cite the influence of the British model of policing on policing in the United States."
This cannot (still?) be true. The US police is using the direct opposite of the Peelian principles, namely fear and overwhelming force to control the public. I'll remove the text. Dustie (talk) 10:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly have Views about U.S. (and Canadian) policing, but the material you removed was properly cited, and I've restored it.  If there are sources suggesting that the influence of Peelian principles on American policing has waned—which strikes me as very possible—they should be included as well. Steve Smith (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Added with sources. Whizz40 (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States
Talk:Police corruption

message: — Assignment last updated by Lindseybean28 (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: College Composition II

message: Hi!
At the beginning of the homepage, there's an alert from Wikipedia saying that the article is too long and difficult to navigate. I think that by making the Prevalence by Country section either is own article and incorporating all the countries; or by giving each country their own article. The only issue with giving each country their own article is that this would be quite time consuming and there would need to be an entire homepage change. 
Let me know what everyone thinks! 
Thank you!  CaitlynCavalllaro (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making New Articles
Talk:Power of arrest

message: All information from Individuals with powers of arrest has been merged into this article, per the merge result at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Individuals with powers of arrest. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger complete

message: After reading Powers of the police in England and Wales, it seems necessary to keep Police held by England/Wales Constables and PCSOs there, and perhaps expand all other Police or Police type powers in this article and maybe rename it. It would end up too confusing in that other article to list the powers of noise abatement officers, trading standards, water bailiffs, etc. I wanted to propose this here before a change is made and it is reverted Apeholder (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion of article
Talk:Problem-oriented policing

message: If you read this article without knowing anything about problem-oriented policing, you would have to assume that it has been a complete failure. While there are clearly reasonable people who disagree with POP, there is no discussion whatsoever of the many benefits that have come from using POP in several cities. This article reads like an letter to the editor from a disgruntled police officer.
Phil Bastian (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV
Talk:Safe house

message: : I removed the WP:LE tag because this article is not primarily about a Law Enforcement topic67.189.184.147 01:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikiproject Law Enforcement tag

message: I don't think bin Laden's compound was a safe house, even though it was called that by some in the media. It was just a hideout.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Osama bin Laden 

message: We have the movie Safe House (2012) and a couple of episodes of 24 shows a safe house: http://24.wikia.com/wiki/Safe_house  — Preceding unsigned comment added by B0ef (talk • contribs) 21:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Fiction 

message: Warning: Humour Ahead !
You know, I always thought that being a hitman was a pretty straightforward job. You get a target, you take them out, and then you disappear into the night. But apparently, these days, hitmen need to have a whole range of skills to stay ahead of the game. Who knew that the ability to blend in with a crowd or hack into a computer system was just as important as being able to shoot straight?I can just imagine the recruitment process for these "spying undercover hitmen." 
"Alright, Alice, we've seen your resume, and it looks like you've got some impressive experience as a sniper. But tell us, do you have any experience infiltrating enemy organizations and planting bugs in their headquarters?" I mean, where do they even find these people?  Craigslist? 
Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that "spying undercover hitmen" is just a fancy way of saying "really sneaky assassins." I mean, if you're good at your job, you don't need to spy on your targets beforehand, right? You just get in there and do the deed. But hey, maybe I'm just old-fashioned. Maybe in today's fast-paced world of espionage and contract killing, you need to be a jack-of-all-trades to succeed. Or maybe, just maybe, someone on Wikipedia was having a little too much fun with their thesaurus. 
I want to emphasize that the above paragraphs were intended to be humorous and not meant to be taken seriously. I do not promote any illegal or unethical activities.  Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 12:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "spying undercover hitmen"
Talk:Sobriety checkpoint

message: I copied this paragraph from the section Sobriety checkpoints#Legality in the United States:
The matter is often hotly argued, with some reporting that roving patrols are the more effective way to identify impaired drivers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, after extensive field studies, concluded that "the number of DWI arrests made by the roving patrol program was nearly three times the average number of DWI arrests made by the checkpoint programs".  
However, the quotation cannot be found at the provided link. In fact, the source mentions a study that supports checkpoints over roving patrols:
Many of the reasons for the non-use of sobriety checkpoints (e.g., they are too expensive, require too much personnel, do not yield enough DWI arrests) (Ross, 1992b) are being overcome by the results of this program and of those in North Carolina and New Mexico (Lacey, Jones and Fell, 1995). A recent study (Stuster and Blowers, 1995) shows that sobriety checkpoints yield greater public awareness of the program and greater decreases in alcohol-related crashes than an enforcement program involving roving patrols.
Searching for a source that supports the quotation found press releases from the American Beverage Institute:
Additionally, a landmark NHTSA study has shown roving patrols to be nearly three times more effective than roadblocks at catching drunk drivers, while a Pennsylvania Department of Transportation official has testified in that state’s Supreme Court that roving patrols are ten times more effective. 
I was unable to find the NHTSA study, either identified by title or in full. Flatscan (talk) 02:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 24.9.63.180 removed the paragraph in question. The ref is pretty good, although dated, and could be used to support other content. Flatscan (talk) 02:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Versus roving patrols 

message: This sounds like it's the same as what we in Australia call a random breath test, and which is briefly discussed on the booze bus page. The scope of this article should be broadened to be more internationally inclusive and probably should be merged with the booze bus article (or at least, that article should become a subsection of this one). —Felix the Cassowary 03:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Booze bus 

message: I replaced a non-working link to a MADD.org page with a seemingly similar page on the same website dated March 2009. I have since removed that link because it's an unsourced opinion piece, and the article already includes at least two other references to MADD. While MADD is notable, it is still a primary source and not the reliable sources we should be using to reference article information. Flowanda | Talk 05:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  MADD links
Talk:Strip search

message: The article needs to be updated.
According to the New York Times "The Supreme Court on Monday ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that officials may strip-search people arrested for any offense, however minor, before admitting them to jails even if the officials have no reason to suspect the presence of contraband.",  in the US strip searches MAY be performed even in the absence of a reasonable suspicion. this is because of a recent ruling by the United States Supreme Court.  On the other hand, some states specifically prohibit them.
In the Supreme Court case , the individual involved was searched in a computer base because he was a passenger in a car stopped for a traffic violation. The computer database indicated that he had not paid a traffic fine [though he had].  He was twice strip searched -- even though he apparently stayed in custody after the first search.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.179.16.86 (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

message: Dunno if this will be useful, but I found a news article about a possible issue with strip searching. According to said article, there is an ethical issue to this practice when performed. Link. 122.60.238.204 (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strip search?
Talk:Suspect

message: This article currently discusses the use of the word, not the underlying concept, and does so from the perspective of the US legal system.  More about the legal sytatus of the suspect, and in other judicial systems, is needed.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage 

message: Does anyone really use the term "perp"? -- ypnypn (talk) 04:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Cambridge.org says it is "US old-fashioned slang", this information should probably be provided. --2.240.205.117 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 13:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Perp" 

message: Essentially every sentence is hot garbage and not really worth being a encyclopedia entry.
"A common error in police reports is a witness description of the suspect (as a witness generally describes a perpetrator, while a mug shot is of a suspect). Frequently it is stated that police are looking for the suspect, when there is no suspect; the police could be looking for a suspect, but they are surely looking for the perpetrator, and very often it is impossible to tell from such a police report whether there is a suspect or not."
This is an example.  It's just plain wrong.  To address it specifically: no the cops are not looking for the perpetrator.  They're looking for the suspect that was described to them, who they hope is the perpetrator or hope is a witness.
"In law enforcement jargon, a suspect is a known person accused or suspected of committing a crime. "
Again, untrue.  This sentence is the basis for the entire (small) paragraph that follows and is essentially the only entry on "suspect."  Legal definitions are entirely pointless when dealing with words that are not nearly exclusively used by the justice systems of the world, because they are, by definition, jurisdictional. 2600:6C54:7900:CD7:61E5:2ABE:D8FF:9F2 (talk) 02:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think it's time to delete this page, merge it with Perpetrator do something else with it. 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Not moved.  No such user (talk) 13:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 24 January 2023
Talk:Tipstaff

message: Parts of this article related to the UK seem to be very similar to the this page at HM Courts Service website. The article does not currently list any sources. Dr pda (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: It appears with and without a capital "T" in the article. Capitalization should be consistent, but I don'tfeelcompetent to choose.J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 18:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is "tipstaff" capitalzed?
Talk:Portrait of Home

message: The criticism section is overly opinionated and should not be included, and it also does not cite any sources.  Criticisms should include those by professional critics with official reviews.  The current information sounds more like the thoughts of a random unhappy viewer.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mingshu (talk • contribs) 11:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms
Talk:Romance de Amour

message: Shouldn't it be Romance d'Amour? :p Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 00:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mais oui; how should it be translated?--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 12:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  bad French
Talk:The Genesis Children

message: I have corrected this article as follows:
1. I have replaced "underage" as the word has no meaning since this is NOT a sexually explicit movie.  My language is clearer.
2. The movie was filmed on a beach in Italy not an island.
3.  The film is neither rare nor expensive.  It is freely available on a number of sites in both VHS and DVD in unlimited numbers.  Award Films is just one example. Tommypowell 17:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Corrections

message: I cleaned up and expanded the article, though not by much. I also added a couple new links and removed the deletion tag. Wilybadger 21:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup and Expansion 

message: I have removed that language.  No sane person could label a serious film without a hint of sexual activity as " child porn" and no link can be provided which does so. Tommypowell 13:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Perceived as child porn" 

message: An earlier edit removed the "Jr." from Billy Byars. His father, Billy Byars, Sr., a Texas oilman, is narrowly famous, mostly mentioned as being "the only person J. Edgar Hoover called on the afternoon of Nov. 22, 1963, besides Robert Kennedy and the head of the Secret Service". Jr. is someone else. If IMDB has it differently, so much the worse for IMDB. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chapado (talk • contribs) 21:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of producer 

message: I'm not sure the Jack Good link is correct, and the David Johnson link leads to a disambig page, as does Greg Hill. I didn't see anything there that seems to relate to these people, so they may be incorrect. --DanielCD (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad links?
Talk:The Hotel (Singaporean TV series)

message: The official synopsis, frankly, lacks detail and doesn't give any indication of what the drama's contents are about. Simply said, having a bit of plot points elaborated, even if its only a sentence or so, would give insight to the reader as to what they would expect. 202.156.10.12 (talk) 10:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that what you added not only differs from the official synopsis significantly, as well as involves the intellectual properties of Disney and Hanna Barbara, I am fairly sure you would be be able to find some articles to back up your claims that your synopsis is legitimate, be it licensing press releases, show review, etc. In case you are unaware, Disney does not allow its characters to be used in shows that depict adult sex and violence, and takes very strong action any unlicensed usage. And we are not talking about just any character but Mickey Mouse here. Do feel free to submit any evidence you have to the contrary, I am sure other editors will be interested in seeing what you have to show us. Zhanzhao (talk) 11:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: IP, what you are adding is basically called WP:UNDUE and WP:OR. And another comment by attacking a fellow editor or breaking WP:3RR, you will face a block for so long.. — Legolas (talk2me) 14:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official synopsis vs detailed synopsis