Talk:Police officer

message: How do people here feel about merging Police officer with Police?
Generalcp702 21:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they should be merged or this one deleted if not sourced soon and disagree with Wikipedian27. It seems too large and grows with no sourcing at all. Fraberj (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 07:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I authored a big part of the occupational hazards section several years ago.  It seems to have been butchered up a little bit.  I noted back then that the entire law enforcement subject in WP is pretty disorganized and needed to be rethought, and maybe a merge would be a step in that direction.  However, I  read the article on Police as an article on the INSTITUTION of the police, its history, function, purpose, and its composition including POLICE OFFICERS, but inserting this entire article into that article would throw it off balance, being out of proportion with a lot of the rest of the article.  I think it might be more appropriate to have a heading about modern policing and a subheading about Police Officer with a Main Article: Police Officer with the POLICE OFFICER article being about individual policemen (and with some sections further expanded, such as training and qualifications, description of police work from the point of view of the officer, etc), and with the stuff in the POLICE article focusing more on how Police Officers function as part of the institution of the Police or how the institution of the police is comprised of command staff and Police Officers with a link to Police Officer. I think it should remain separate, but with expansion of some sections, or if merged, it should be merged with an eye toward revamping the entire law enforcement subject. KTrimble (talk) 05:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree. If no one objects, I think the merge tag can be removed. (It is not on the Police article, by the way). Whizz40 (talk) 07:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Merge was rejected and undone on the Police article, Talk:Police/Archive_1#Merge, so I will go ahead and remove the tag. Issue is more the need for reducing overlap and improving the two articles. Whizz40 (talk) 07:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Sign here when you visit this page. I want to know how often people come here.
--Generalcp702 22:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a very old message, but in case anyone has the same question, the page views can be checked at Article traffic statistics.  It appears this talk page is viewed a couple of times per day, on average.  -TeaDrinker (talk) 16:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Check

message: "Although recruits to the police force are often school leavers..."
Can someone please clarify this? Does this mean that police officers are often highschool dropouts? Can this be verfied?
: its a british term, it means finished secondary school, but do not go on to further education. StrengthCoach 07:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then shouldn't that be fixed? Non-Brits would perhaps take it to mean "those who quit school before completion".
I mistook it for "dropout", I also found it irrelevent to the topic under discussion (service in military or security services) no matter what the country involved and deleted it.--Buckboard 10:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You should flag it for deletion so others may vote. Further, I find that the quality of oversight of police in my area and quality in general, as per railroadings is quite important an issue. Deleting it shows bias or not enough knowledge on the subject. Particularly when the entire court system is there to address this very subject as well.Fraberj (talk) 07:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "school leavers" 

message: In countries using the English system, only those police members who have reached the rank of inspector or above are officers. Calling a police sergeant a police officer is like calling an army sergeant an army officer. Avalon 08:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Complete rubbish, I'm afraid. All British police are "police officers", no matter what their rank. This might not be the case in other countries, but it's certainly true throughout the United Kingdom. -- Necrothesp 00:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: police "officers"

message: Why do infectious diseases deserve mention as a danger to police officers? Aren't they dangers to the entire public?
--Generalcp702 00:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Police officers are much more at risk, since they often deal with blood (which may well be contaminated), drug users and people with little concern for hygiene. -- Necrothesp 13:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was don't move, of course. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 07:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infectious diseases? 

message: "It is a common misconception that police officers work to "serve and protect." In reality they are there to protect the interest of the rich, powerful and corrupt. This reality is best illustrated by the slang term PIG, whigh also illustrates the type of personality required to enslave and rob individuals of their God-granted freedom"
man! i thought everything i've heard about regarding misinformation on wikipedia was a joke.  this is ridiculous though, and i deleted it.
Good deletion, probably someone from copwatch.com or somethin...
The term "PIG" probably belongs in a criticism of law enforcement or police brutality.
:Hmmmmm.... Why do you want to know who they are? Are you a cop? You will notice, as well that someone wants everyone here to sign in? Seems like a police officer or vested interest trying to induce the well known chilling effect. As well you who deleted it know nothing of it (or are police as well) and how the police have ways to shut you up if you complain about the railroadings that occur. You complain to Internal Affairs then they come out to "investigate" the report. They will only be "investigating" the victims of their railroadings and use the evidence to railroad you further like "making false police reports", while they lie to the court (with immunity of course). The chief of police, and any one else in this U.S. dictatorship can call on them to "sneak and peek" search you, tap your phone or even date you with a "swallow" and worse if the political issue is big enough. Oh, and all these undercover cops (obliterating the 4th amendment) will race-bait, ethics-bait, child molester-bait you to boot. Soon the other cops even believe their own lies. The rat's nest comes down on you. Will the lawyers sue them? Not in many places, they will be in danger. And the legal fees? They have handlings to those railroaded who have something to say. Including placing undercover cops in their businesses to sabotage them, or delete your MySpace site, rob and beat you up posing as robbers, or all of the above again and again until you keep quite, etc., etc., etc. What's worse is all the cops know what's going on too. Wake up people, when the "ring of steel" is extended world wide along with the eyes in the sky you will not be able to then. Fraberj (talk) 08:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  who wrote this? 

message: Putting this in Wikipedia was a copyright violation; it has been removed and will not be restored so the link to it needed to be removed from this article.  Rlquall 16:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Officer Down Memorial Page 

message: It would be undeniably POV to leave out a criticism of cops, considering how many people do criticize them. 69.123.9.255
:Sure.  Just find credible sources and write it in an encyclopaedic tone.  OTOH, I think notable allegations of corruption/brutality against specific officers or specific forces belong in the articles about those particular forces, and general concerns about the Police belong on that page, or at Police brutality etc. FiggyBee 00:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: The passage states that officers are more likely to be killed in car accidents than by suspects, yet the evidence offered contradicts that statement:
Officers are more likely to be involved in traffic accidents because of their large amount of time spent traveling/patrolling as well as their work outside their vehicles alongside or on the roadway or in dangerous pursuits. Officers killed by suspects make up a smaller proportion of deaths. In the U.S. in 2005, 156 line of duty deaths were recorded of which 44% were from assaults on officers, 35% vehicle related (only 3% during vehicular pursuits) and the rest from other causes: heart attacks during arrests/foot pursuits, diseases contracted from suspects, accidental gun discharges, falls, and drownings.[1]
While it may be true that vehicle deaths are more common overall, perhaps a different source should be used that encompasses more than one year of statistics and/or references the proportions in other countries. 
Npschuma 06:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting information 

message: I notice that the notable police officers section has been more or less copletely duplicated at Well-known_police_officers. I would suggest that might be a better place for it than to have a long list here on the main article, so perhaps the whole section should be replaced by a link in the 'see also' area. If not, perhaps the other page should be redirected here.
Stevecudmore 01:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable Police Officers

message: There's nothing on the police officers of historic times.
For instance, the origin, dress, procedures etc etc of the British "Bobby" of times gone by.
195.24.29.51 13:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  history 

message: minor changes, but I believe it would read better to say, "Police officers can be trained in a vast array of specialties including armed response, hostage negotiation. . ."
I have never heard "specialisms" before, but I am not a police officer (or English teacher) and I could be wrong.
198.105.8.48 00:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed it, and also trimmed down the list which was well unwieldy.  There's also a different list of "specialisms" further down the article... FiggyBee 01:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  third sentence 

message: A quick note on capitalisation: as a rule, the names of jobs are not capitalised (firefighter, plumber, police officer, president) except where they are a formal job title that is used with a name (Police Constable Smith, President Clinton). Thus:
"I called 911 and said I needed a police officer. Before long, Officer Bloggins arrived."
(My reference: The Canadian Press Stylebook, XI edition)
Stevecudmore 16:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: capitalisation

message: I know the term "bobby" has been recently replaced by another one, but I don't know which one... Can anybody tell me, please?
Thanks in advance  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmagruiz (talk • contribs) 18:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it was ever a formal or official name. It's a nickname, after Robert Peel, and as far as I know, it's still used. "Peelers" was another nickname in the 19th century that has fallen into disuse (except when referring to strippers). Do you recall where you got that impression? bobanny 17:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any help? 

message: This sounds like a TOTAL ad for becoming a cop.  And with your special vandalism policies, how much more could you ask for?  Yes you have that oh so special section that discrbes 'alternative' views on coppers but please, where are all the views?  There are people who have legitimate reasons to despise the police - these aren't just alternatives but blunt oppositions.  How much further will the country go to bend over backwards for a group of power hunger jerks who are on the take.  I believe there needs to be a massive rewrite of this article and hope to make some changes in the future.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.189.145.72 (talk) 05:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How much did they pay you? 

message: "Despite the increased risk of being a victim of a homicide, automobile accidents are the most common cause of officer deaths. (...) Officers killed by suspects make up a smaller proportion of deaths. In the U.S. in 2005, 156 line of duty deaths were recorded of which 44% were from assaults on officers, 35% vehicle related..."
Maybe my English isn't good enough to correctly understand this paragraph, but to me, it seems to be contradictory. 62.152.162.24 (talk) 06:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Line of duty deaths 

message: There is a claim that policemen are known as "bobbies on the beat". I changed this to "bobby". It is well-known that police officers in the UK are called "bobbies", but "bobby on the beat" refers specifically to a policeman on patrol. A policeman walking the streets is a "bobby on the beat"; a policeman behind a desk is just a "bobby"; the Chief Constable of a police force is certainly not referred to as a "bobby on the beat". If whoever posted this can provide references to back up their claim I'll be happy to change my mind. here is an interesting article which talks somewhat about 'beat' patrolling. here is another answer - not an RS but gives a good idea of what the difference is. here is another. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's see the reference before concluding; but just to be clear I can turn up many thousands of references to British Policemen as just "Bobbies", do you have as many?    or google "british bobby". See also Police. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Please don't be sarcastic. My point about the number of references is that one guy might refer to all British policemen as "bobby on the beat", but if everyone else refers to them as just "bobby" then that's what Wikipedia goes with. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Police,Mad,Jack, you haven't yet supplied your reference, so please don't put your version back, even in brackets. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Jack, I don't have that book immediately available, but please could you quote whatever is in the book that makes you think all policemen are called "bobby on the beat". And again one reference doesn't override the many references that show the nickname as "bobby". DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Let me rephrase: please could you quote whatever is in the book that makes you think "bobby on the beat" is a nickname for all police officers, as opposed to those who are actually patrolling, or whose duties are mainly patrolling? DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Then feel free to explain to me what you mean. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

text: If you think I didn't understand you, maybe you could explain it again. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't take this personally. You have a particular view of what "bobby on the beat" means, and I disagree with it. This happens a lot at Wikipedia, and it's normal to discuss it like adults, citing references to back up our views, and occasionally restating an argument if we think the other has misunderstood. That's exactly what I've done, and you are welcome to do it too. If you don't want to be involved that's up to you too. Enjoy your editing elsewhere in Wikipedia. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I think nicknames aren't meant to mean anything on their own - "cop" doesn't mean anything on its own; unless you know already that it means "policeman" then you're not going to understand it. The same with "bobby". Anyway, people mostly don't give it context. They just use the word and let you either understand it or not. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Police,Mad,Jack: Please don't just change things to your point of view and stop talking on the talk page. If you can't reach a consensus for your point of view then you shouldn't change the article that way. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I put it to you that it's irrelevant. "Bobby" is specific only to the UK, so it's not appropriate to be in the lead of an article about police officers worldwide. It belongs in an article about British policing. A person reading this article might get the wrong impression that "bobby" is an appropriate term for a US cop. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bobby on the beat

message: I propose that the list of names "also known as" is cut down. While "policeman" "copper" and "cop" are pretty universal "bobby" is specifically British and "Police Constable" is technically a rank, and only applicable to officers of that rank and in forces where the rank exists. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, my point is that "Police Constable" applies only to British forces and a few others that derive from it historically. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Technically it's a rank, as I'm sure you are aware. And I've found less than ten countries that use the rank. In the US "constable" means something else entirely. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

text: As well as being the legal office, as such, it is a rank. See any list of ranks of any forces in the UK. Police,Mad,Jack ☺ 14:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Also known as

message: "the major role of the police is to maintain order, keeping the peace through enforcement of laws and societal norms". I don't think the police are normally charged with keeping "societal norms". Does anyone have examples where they are? DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Three days and no answers. I'm going to remove it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Societal norms

message: Hi all! I've read the article and read through your debate above. I see the issue as being a split between what is appropriate for listing as another colleqiual name for a police officer and what is not. My recommendation is a compromise. I'd advise that you should consider a new section for the article entitled "Other terms for police officer. Included in that section would be things like "Cop", "Bobby", "Flatfoot" etc... but only if they are reliable sources that list them as such. Additional names would also state where a police officer is known by that name. Do remember that Wikipedia is niether US or UK centric, but universal! Phrases such as "Bobby on the beat" are not really terms per se, rather I think that they are descriptive phrases (but that's a personal opinion and if a WP:RS can be found then so be it. I'd remove the section  in the introduction that says "(also known as a "policeman", Police Constable, and colloquially as "copper" or "cop")" as it would be covered by the new section. I'd also list a police officer as a warranted or sworn officer as not all policemen have a warrant card, some are sworn by a judge. Comments? :-) Fr33kmantalk APW 19:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be happy with that. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: User McGeddon has added an internal link to List of slang terms for police officers which I think is good. I still think that the article needs a section, perhaps now entitled "Common terms for police officer" which would list, say no more than the 6 to 10 names and then provide a [see also:List of slang terms for police officers. Comment? Fr33kmantalk APW 20:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm 40, born and raised in England and still live there. Yes, I've heard of "bobby on the beat", however, I disagree that it is a commonly used everyday term by the public in the modern era. Yes, it is used by the government almost every day for political reasons but not by the average man on the street. They would refer to them as "cops", "the old bill" or "bobbys" (well the nice names anyway). The important part of "Bobby on the beat" is the word "Bobby". It is that (based on Sir Robert Peel, also known as "Peelers") that causes a police officers to be known as "bobby's" (from Bobby's Boys as you know). "Bobby on the beat" is a phrase, "Bobby" is a term, a nickname if you will. The phrase "Bobby on the beat" should be added to the "Bobby" line in the list of slang names for a police officer. As for readers not understanding the word "bobby", the same could be true of any term. You are using your personal experience of the usage of terms to determine what people "everywhere" will understand. This is dangerous. There are probably people out there that have never heard the term "cop", or "fuzz". The wise reader will follow the link to the slang terms :-) We are trying for compromise here. That is the way forward in the vast majority of disputes. I think we have stuck up a good possible arrangement where everyones wishes are taken into consideration and where everyone gets at least some of what they want. Fr33kmantalk APW 15:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Add if it's put into the proposed section called "Common terms for police officer" then only a really unobservant reader could confuse the term. Fr33kmantalk APW 15:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

text: List of slang terms for police officers explains about "bobby", and talks about the usage of "bobby on the beat". DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

text: How about we keep something like; "Police officer ... (also known as police constable)"? No slang terms in the introduction, but an inclusion of constable, because many are thus; and then put a link to the slang names page? Fr33kmantalk APW 21:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats a good idea, because in lots of countries the starting rank is Constable. This is especially helpful to include, due to Constable actually being a title within the law, its not just a rank. Most police officers, although not all, hold the title of a Constable which is where power dreives from, well most of it anyway. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 15:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Constable is country specific. It's used in the UK and some countries that inherited from the UK system, such as Canada (but even then not in all forces). In the US constable means something different completely, not a police officer. In other countries it isn't known at all. Why don't we create a section on other names for police officers where we can go into the necessary detail without cluttering up the intro? DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Constable is not used in the US, thats fine. Because it will say "Police Constable" rather than the latter. Dont worry about cluttering up the lead, if we messed around trying to make things pretty and pink, we would never get anywhere. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 15:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Police constable" isn't used in the US either. And not cluttering up the lead is an important part of making a readable article. Fr33kman suggested a separate section and I agree with him. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *This is true. A US constable is a municipal office, or a state one. Fr33kmantalk APW 04:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

text: For goodness sakes, I know its not used in the US. Thats why I suggested calling it "Police Constable" avoiding you complaint, that it is not used in the same capacity as other places. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 15:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *tone :-) Fr33kmantalk APW 04:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

text: As Clayworth says, the term "police constable" is not used in the US. A new section does seem like the best solution here. --McGeddon (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

text: * I think that a section is a good idea. I'd also agree that constable is a bit Commonwealth centric (can you call something that widespread, centric?) so it shouldn't go in the introduction: makes sense. I guess the aim is to keep it as generic as possible.  Fr33kmantalk APW 04:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Dude, tone. We're trying to finish this off and move on with our lives ... :-) Fr33kmantalk APW 04:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

text: On 12 September 15:55 you wrote: "I know its [constable] not used in the US. Thats why I suggested calling it Police Constable". Then when we pointed out that police constable was also not used in the US you wrote "Since when did I say it was?". DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

text: It should never be all about the US Jack, it should be about nowhere in particular. An encyclopedia article should be as generic as possible in its terminology. Since this is about the police officers of the World and because it's in English, I think that the thought is that it shouldn't contain any specialist terms at all. "Police officer" is generic, no one denies that. It is what "they" are (everywhere). "PC" is specific to commonwealth countries, and not even all of those anymore. I really it think that it would make sense not to use it. Fr33kmantalk APW 04:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: I think it entirely appropriate to have a summary in the intro of what a police officer does. I've added one. It's appropriate to summarise in the intro things that are specified in the main article body. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good title to the section It could be "Function of the intro". I'd call it a vital part. The introduction should be just that, a brief overview of the most important points of the rest of the article. One reason that this is important (having a good intro) are navpopups. Those things that popup when you hover over a page (assuming you're using them). They give a nice and quick 'snapshot' that often allows a reader to continue in the article they're reading whilst being able to lookup the meanings or words and finding out basic information about things and people. :-) Fr33kmantalk APW 04:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Function in the intro

message: hi mi name is halleena winphrie and i want to b a poilce woman am now 14teen years old am in the 8th grade and i was tryin to find the nature the working conditions the skills needed and i cant find it so i would like some one to put them on here so i can find there easyer
  love,
 haleena 
soon noun as ms.officer winphrie  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.110.125 (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Haleena. I'm afraid this is the wrong place to be asking this. This page is for writing an encyclopedia about police officers. You might try at Wikipedia:Reference desk. But the best thing to do is ask at your local police force. Some places even have "police cadets", which you can join as young as 14. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  as a police woman  

message: Some police officers do carry a suitcase or a bag with personal or duty equipment. This is missing in that section. --Scriberius (talk) 12:59, 16 October 200 bc (UTC)
Yes, but we should make the note that police officers do not carry gear in the bag. Just Scenes of Crime Officers, or Investigative officers. A uniformed officer would more often than not, wear a belt. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 13:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Policeman#Equipment|Equipment]]  

message: I added a legitimate link source that proves that policing isn't that dangerous, and in fact, isn't even in the top 10 most dangerous jobs in America. just thought y'all should know. 75.72.92.166 (talk) 23:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not in the top ten professions with the highest fatality rate, which is the only statistic your source measures. We should state that rather than generalising this number as a "dangerousness" score, and we certainly shouldn't make the leap of calling it "one of the safer occupations". --McGeddon (talk) 08:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Absolutely. The reference does not say "one of the safer professions" it says "on the safer side compared with several other professions", which sounds like it means "safer" but actually means "there are at least a few other professions that are more dangerous". Removed the statement. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Police Work rather safe, actually

message: * Firstly, unless I've totally misinterpreted WP:TALK, the purpose of this page is discussing editing to the page NOT a place for the world and his mistress to vent their frustration against the police.
* Secondly, this article is of huge importance! To have such an important article in such a state is appalling. In line with WP:RS, you CANNOT simply make an assertion or provide a fact without being able to VERIFY it. That is the ONE KEY THING this article lacks- it's accurate, concise and well written, but it completely lacks reliable sources, a travesty for an article this good and for one of this importance. 
* I suggest doing some research, checking your facts and finding WP:RS, which should be pit into the article in appropriate places. HJ Mitchell (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: What on Earth is going on here?????

message: This post is a general comment on the other comments made so far.  I think some clearer thinking is in order here.  
This article is supposed to be about Police Officers, not about 'the police', police departments, or the police as an institution, but presumably about the people who actually are policemen, about the work, about the experience of being a police officer, qualifications, remuneration, hazards, rewards, etc, and perhaps how this profession or job (some might argue that calling it a 'profession' enobles it too much) fits into the larger scheme of things.  
There is a comment here somewhere about how the article read like a police PR recruitment article, and the first half (up to the part that I wrote) probably does.  Each part of this needs to be rewritten and expanded with more actual data about training and qualifications, salaries, career ladders, etc.  There was a comment about adding info about equipment cops work with that sounds like a good idea.  
There is a section at the end about police brutality or corruption or whatever that sounds like it was written by somebody pissed off at the police.  Beleive me, I can relate.  I had a run-in with local cops here in my hometown, and got the lecture about how being a cop is soooo dangerous, and how policemen put their lives on the line for society everyday, and how cops were generally a superior form of life than everybody else, and how appropriate it was that they receive special treatment, and so on.  I researched those claims at that time (this was several years ago) and learned that the police PR is a bunch of crap.  And ever since I have gotten to where I am really offended any time a policeman spouts off about it.  But, you can't try to correct them about it without risking getting arrested for contept of cop.  So I looked to this WP article, and set the record straight.  There was a section about work related deaths or hazards or whatever that was a paragraph or two, and I greatly expanded it to where it is now more than half of the article.  I endeavored to be as neutral in the writing as possible, to not editorialize or draw my own conclusions, not to cite any opinions or original research, to document almost every fact cited, and to be as truthful and complete as possible.  My intention is to make the police look bad, but only by shining the light of truth on the subject.  I think I may have achieved that goal.  This section has been corrected and edited several times by others making it even better and more complete. However, in doing so, the article is lopsided.  The previous half needs to be as complete and as well documented as the part I wrote in order to be a good article.  
The part on brutality and misconduct, however, looks like opinion, sour grapes, and original research.  It needs two things:  First it needs to be greatly expanded and better researched.  Second, some thought needs to be put into it regarding whether it should be under 'police officer' or some other article having to do with the the institution of the police, such as 'police' or 'police department'.  But expanding this section would leave the article completely lopsided with negative prose. Expressing an opinion by citing facts may be marginally acceptable in an encyclopedia article only to the extent that it balances the police public relations department press release in the rest of the article.  If eighty percent of the article is all about negativity about cops, then the whole article would read like a hatchet job on the cops and would lack credibility.   KTrimble (talk) 02:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There needs to be a balance, and without this section, the article would indeed read like a police PR recruitment article.  Briefly raising the issue of police brutality / corruption seems entirely appropriate.  However, should the section expand significantly, it would be out of place, and definitely come across as lopsided.  If that happens, and the facts are well-researched, then the section might deserve its own page, or alternatively, should be moved to another article more relevant. Just my opinion.Josophie (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planning Comment for what should and what should not be in this article 

message: I just browsed the subject for a few minutes, and realized that the entire subject area of law enforcement/police is a complete mess.  There have got to be ten different words that refer to police officers (eg. constable, trooper, sheriff, etc.) and almost every one has a WP article that sort of parallels this one.  Also, the articles about 'police' or similar organizations (eg. state police, etc.) seem to all parallel each other as well.  There needs to be some better collective thinking on reorganizing this entire subject.  KTrimble (talk) 03:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  An even larger comment 

message: Many Images are of North American Policemen, pehaps some from other nations would be a good contribution.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.8.135.35 (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internationalism 

message: Please change:
"Police officers are much more likely to experience interpersonal relationship problems. Relationship problems are most dramatically demonstrated by the divorce rate among police officers, which is usually reported as being the second highest of all occupations. Divorce statistics for police officers, as a profession, are elusive and imprecise, but it is typically reported that the divorce rate for police officers is 60% to 70% higher than for the general population.[13] (Oddly, the divorce rate for veteran officers, or over 15 years of service, is actually lower than general population, though that statistic is also controversial."
to
"There is a common belief that divorce is higher among police officers in spite of the fact that there is no empirical research supporting such a belief.  The divorce rates of law enforcement personnel were compared with the rates for other occupations, data was analyzed from the 2000 U.S. Census. The results of the analysis indicate that the divorce rate for law enforcement personnel is lower than that of the general population, even after controlling for demographic and other job-related variables."
http://www.radford.edu/NewsPub/December09/1217divorce.html
http://faculty.insead.edu/popescu/UDJcore/2010/handouts/Divorce%20Rates.pdf
McCoy, S. P. & Aamodt, M. G.  A comparison of law enforcement divorce rates with those of other occupations.  Journal of Police & Criminal Psychology, Spring, 2010. 25: 1-16.
Mikanaby (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Partly done: Reworded some Jnorton7558 (talk) 10:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 74.60.197.226, 18 June 2011 

message: Remove incorrect information:  
"There are typically around 300 reported police suicides each year in the USA, usually roughly double the number of police officers that are killed in the line of duty. The suicide rate among police officers varies around 29 per 100,000 in the United States, nearly two and a half times the rate in the overall population (typically about 12 in 100,000)."
With the following information:
"A study in the United States, by National Surveillance of Police Suicide Study (NSOPS), showed 141 suicides in 2008 and 143 in 2009. This yields a suicide rate of 17/100,000, a figure that holds up under scrutiny and is consistent with CDC/NOMS data. (1)  The overall suicide rate in the United States was 11.3 suicide deaths per 100,000 people. (2)"
(1) O'Hara, A. F. & Violanti, J. M.  Police suicide- A web surveillance of national data.  Journal Of Emergency Mental Health.  Vol. 11, Issue 1.  Winter, 2009.  
(2) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS): www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars
Mikanaby (talk) 01:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Jnorton7558 (talk) 10:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Mikanaby, 19 June 2011 

message: An image used in this article, File:Metropolitan police service officers.PNG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Metropolitan police service officers.PNG)
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Metropolitan police service officers.PNG Nominated for Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Ukpolice.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Police officer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090415073419/http://www.allbusiness.com:80/human-resources/employee-development/482217-1.html to http://www.allbusiness.com/human-resources/employee-development/482217-1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think this article would strongly benefit from something on the early history of policing.  I know in the UK dedicated police officers didn't really exist until Robert Peel introduced the concept in the Victorian era, but I do not know very much about other countries.  Does anyone have suitable expertise in the field to be put together a section giving historical context? --Legis (talk - contribs) 15:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Early history of policing

message: pcp knife  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.31.128.133 (talk) 00:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  pcp knife  

message: Italic text
əəž
  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.31.128.133 (talk) 00:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  pcp knife  

message: It depends on country whether police officer would be a profession or not as standards of police training vary (from a professional degree in Norway to less than a year in some US  jurisdictions to speak only of variation in the west).
As a whole should it be classified as a profession or not?
Some people become police officers for a sense of justice (I.E. as a vocation) whilst in some countries people may join either for high pay or even (in countries with dysfunctional police forces in the developing world, perhaps) for opportunities to receive bribes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by AverroesII (talk • contribs) 10:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occupation type? 

message: There are two requests in this article. The first, requires additional sources. The second, asks for additional content regarding police pay (see top of section for notification). I provided 2 valid sources who provided their articles with FOIA obtained content. This information provides readers with a ballpark range of what police officers earn with overtime in a certain geographical area. There is no content currently that discusses police pay with overtime totals. Therefore, the content with 2 valid sources should remain and the edit war should stop. If you are an editor and you find cited content with multiple requests for it, you should not remove the edit. Twillisjr (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Police Officer - Pay Subsection 

message: @Twillisjr May I cite WP:VNOT with regards to your revert. Just because something is verifiable, does not warrant its inclusion in the article. In an article about police officers as a broad concept, the salary information of some officers in a single County in Connecticut certainly does not merit inclusion per WP:SS (especially when cited to two local news outlets). My view is that this was a completely uncontroversial change that follows WP:INDISCRIMINATE. :3 F4U (they/it) 13:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I added two additional citations (now 4 total) and it looks a bit more paragraph style as you requested. One citation was from Berkeley University. Twillisjr (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Twillisjr The issue I brought was not that there weren't enough citations (and adding more citations does not make the sentences more worthy of inclusion). Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and this is an article about police officers as a broad concept. Information about the salaries of local police officers is far outside the scope of this article (or even other, more pointed articles like Law enforcement in the United States). :3 F4U (they/it) 14:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to move the paragraph to the Law enforcement in the United States page, I do not object. Twillisjr (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it isn't fit for either article. Sections about salaries in a WP:Broad-concept article like in this article or Law enforcement in the United States should restrict itself to aggregate national information, not city/province-level information. :3 F4U (they/it) 15:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn’t disagree more. The article calls for expansion and you are preventing the expansion of this section. I have provided 4 citations, one of which is a university. Twillisjr (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all that tag was added when the section consisted of a single sentence:  Secondly, there is appropriate and inappropriate expansion of an article. Inclusion of information on aggregate national pay in other countries, or academic discussions on how police pay is determined is appropriate. The inclusion of highly local pay information is far outside the scope of this article. (Unrelated to my point at hand, just FYI: You've cited a student newspaper, which by no means is an unreliable source, but citing a student newspaper is not equivalent to citing a university.) :3 F4U (they/it) 15:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fairfield County salary information