Talk:Police/Archive 1

message: Is it me or...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cwjqu4as5.jpg | the man at the far right and the one with the ram are both exposed by the windows. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_Customs_and_Border_Protection_officers.jpg | aren't they supposed to be a little more spaced out than this, not only does this makes them an easy target... it also looks gay
:Heaven forbid anyone should think there's any gayness in the police. bobanny 02:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Un-professional images 

message: Someone seems to have changed 'Pig' to redirect here. Can we have this changed back to redirecting to the 'pigs' article, or even to the disambiguation page? 15:50 (GMT) 21 February 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.11.60.208 (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that when you look up pig in an encyclopedia, the information you find should be about an animal. Deleting an article in order to make it into a redirect for a derogatory term doesn't really make much sense. --OnoremDil 15:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pig 

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

message: It has the POV of the police and of lawyers.
For example, "critics" say that police are how the government uses its monopoly on force, but that police perform this function for government is an objective fact, and is therefore NPOV.
The rest of the article is riddled with police jargon, which gives it its police POV. For example, "the major role of the police is to discourage and investigate crimes, and if able to apprehend suspected perpetrator(s), to detain them, and inform the appropriate authorities." It's POV in part because it places more emphasis on the possibility that the "suspected perpetrator(s)" might by GUILTY than it places on the possibility that they might be innocent. In Western societies, a court must decide on guilt after the arrest takes place. A NPOV wording would put equal emphasis on both possibilities. The police jargon used (ie "detain", "crime", "perpetrator") insinuates the POV that breaking the law is morally wrong, and enforcing the law is morally right.
A more neutral description of their role might read "the major role of police is to forcibly capture anyone who has or may have acted in defiance of the law." Notice that in this wording, equal weight is given to both guilt and innocence, and the fact that what police do is violence is right out in the open, instead of masked by legalistic euphemisms, thus eliminating the POV that police violence is morally justified. By eliminating the use of the word crime, I remove the non-neutral connotation that breaking the law is morally wrong. Meanwhile, those views are not replaced by their opposites (crime is good and police violence is bad), which makes the description NPOV.
The article is descriptive of an entity, not a philospohical discussion. Being encyclopedic does not mean giving equal weight to all points of view in every sentence. A disclaimer somewhere near the beginning can divert the person looking for such a discussion to the proper philosphical article in the philosophical portal. Sometimes the mere abuse of NPOV-POV gives weight to one side, and this suggestion does. I agree about the jargon criticsm, but it's tough to avoid on occasion without sounding semi-literate. I added a paragraph at the beginning of the United States section which stresses that the police are tasked with putting people/organizations into the system (to determine if a crime was comitted and if so, did they commit it). How they continue through it or are cleared from it at various points along the way is a whole nother article in itself.--Buckboard 05:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well fix it.  There's plenty that can be said about police brutality, the conservative nature of police forces, the disjunction between the actual effectiveness of additional policing and the propensity of people to vote for it, their use in political oppression, and so on and so forth.  However, don't try and turn this into an Indymedia anti-police rant either. --Robert Merkel 09:16, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that was implicit in my tone or was my intention. However, this nevertheless does look like a disproportionately POV article. Fortunately the police lie a long way outside my real ambit of interest, except perhaps in so far as the activities of earlier police systems (e.g. Burleigh's system of spies and informers) are concerned, and I am dealing with those as I go along. I am more concerned that we can set up an article as unbalanced as this as an encyclopaedic entry, and I would implore someone who has a background in criminology to take a good long hard look at this topic and fix it. Sjc 14:38, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

message: The Texas Ranger Division article says that the Texas Rangers are the oldest law enforcement agency.  BlueGoose 01:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction with Texas Ranger Division 

message: The main page today states that the London police force was the first official police force.  That begs for information about what came before that?  What was policing like before 'official' police forces and what made it more 'official' than others. - Taxman 16:59, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
Concur - need more on history, and better linking to related articles. Also a section on names for the police and the origins of these. Rd232 10:34, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of policing? 

message: I'm trying to sort out the long lists on this page somewhat. I agree that most, if not all of the things mentioned are relevant, but it's all somewhat undifferentiated and hard to follow at the moment.
I've started by grouping the list of forces by country further into continents. If anyone doesn't think it's appropriate... that's what the revert thing's for. PMcM 01:36, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganising long lists 

message: How about fewer pictures of police vehicles and more pictures of actual police officers in various situations?AndyL 02:00, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: AndyL, I agree but it's not that easy. I put the the English police car pic on and I do have some pictures of the police. But I'm not putting them on because their faces show and I have no way of getting their permission. If I blur their faces, the pic looks really weird. Perhaps someone does have pics of police where their faces don't show clearly. - Adrian Pingstone 10:17, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: How about a "Police in the Media" section? It could depict how police forces are depicted in shows and movies and could references popular shows such as COPS. It could also outline various police stereotypes... -BrandonR 07:00, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
I generally take offense to the paragraph relating to "cop-killers". This makes it seem as if all US police officers are ignorant monsters who would simply kill a suspect.
----
Uh, if you were actually familiar with American law enforcement, with its history, and the history of litigation against law enforcement, you would realize that the rule is quite common nationwide.  
The basic problem is that since violent crime became epidemic in the U.S. along with the war on drugs in the 1980s, cops have become extremely trigger-happy and the courts have generally deferred to their discretion.  The basic idea is that the burden is on suspects to show their peaceful intent.  I know some people who work in healthcare who treat people shot up by cops all the time, because the cops misinterpreted some careless (but innocent) motion.
Try reading cases like Lyons v. Los Angeles (1983) sometime to get an idea of the problem.
--Coolcaesar 00:41, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just saw an article in the L.A. Times last week about the problem of Los Angeles sheriff's deputies becoming too trigger-happy.  Five incidents in two years where they fired anywhere from 50 to 120 bullets at a single suspect in a matter of seconds.  The incident with 120 bullets fired in 2004 was particularly egregious since the suspect was unarmed.  --Coolcaesar 08:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Police in Media section? 

message: Can someone provide a definition of "swon" and "un-sworn" in reference to different categories of police personnel? Thanks ~ Dpr 08:32, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe generally true today, but sworn in strictly means you have been granted government authority. Untrained specials could be sworn in temporarily during a crisis when the regular police were inadequate, the same as deputizing a posse in American westerns. Bobanny 19:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Term "sworn" 

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

message: Are they?Dudtz 10/7/05 6:17 PM EST
:Depends upon what you mean as police.  If by police, you mean the broad legal definition where it refers to any law enforcement officer, then yes.  But if you mean the general casual sense where police means a local law enforcement officer, who handles all kinds of stuff from speeding to homicides, then no. --Coolcaesar 05:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the ATF considered police? 

message: I deleted this section:
A number of colorful slang terms have found themselves into the terminology commonly used by police officers. Some examples are:
* BCI: Bureau of Criminal Information (fingerprint and criminal records section)
* CCRB: Civilian Complaint Review Board
* CSI: Crime Scene Investigation
* CSU: Crime Scene Unit
* DOA: Dead on arrival
* DRT: Dead Right There
* DWI: Driving while intoxicated (a.k.a. "Dee Wee")
* DT: slang for detective
* EDP : Emotionally disturbed person
* EMS: Emergency Medical Services
* ESU: Emergency Services Unit
* FAT: Fugitive Apprehension Team
* Five-O: Slang for police (derived from TV police drama Hawaii Five-O)
* Flying: as in "fly the coup" to work in another precinct or assignment
* Go down: "You're going down" (being arrested)
* Gun run: Going in search of a gun used in a crime
* Hit: To assault or raid a known criminal location
* IAB: Internal Affairs Bureau ("cops who investigate cops")
* Lawyering up: A suspect shuts up and requests a lawyer
* Lou/Loo: slang for lieutenant
* MOS: Member of the Service, a radio code word identifying a police officer
* OC: Organized crime
* Package/VIP: Escorted prisoner, as in "delivering a package" to a destination
* Paying the rent: Doing grunt work like issuing traffic summonses or tickets
* Perp: Perpetrator of a crime (also "Mope" or "Mutt")
* Puzzle Palace: Slang for main police headquarters
* Rabbi: A reliable, trustworthy person in the work environment, who one can go to for advice
* Rat Squad: Officers and detectives who work for IAB
* Red Menace: Nickname for members of the fire department (a.k.a. "Rubbermen")
* Rip: Pay reduction, resulting from a disciplinary action
* RMP: Radio Mobile Patrol
* Skel: short for "skeleton", refers to drug users, junkies, or homeless vagrants. Possibly short for
** "skellum", meaning thief or street beggar
** skeleton key
* SNAG: Special Narcotics and Guns Unit
* SNEU: Special Narcotics Enforcement Unit
* SOD: Special Operations Division
* TARU: Technical and Research Unit/Technical Assistance Response Unit
* Tunnel Rats: Transit police officers (usually work in subways)
* White Shirts: Senior officers (sergeant and above) who wear white police uniform shirts
These are almost exclusively US terms. If people want to add these then a new article should be created specifically about US police. -- Necrothesp 16:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cop lingo 

message: I take umbrage with the following statement in the "Difficult issues" section:
:Police forces also find themselves under criticism for their use of force, particularly deadly force when a police officer of one race kills a suspect of another race. In the United States, such events routinely spark protests and accusations of racism against police.
Is it a matter of routine that protests occur?  There are many nonprovocative instances in which there is little question that the use of force (deadly or otherwise) by police against members of a different race than the responding officers is justified.  It would be accurate to say that these "often" spark protests and accusations.  "Routinely" may represent a non-neutral POV.
DrBlintz 07:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it depends upon which city you are talking about.  Certainly, in volatile and severely segregated cities like Los Angeles, protests and accusations are routine whenever a police officer shoots someone of another race for any reason (valid or not).  But such responses are not as common (or at least not as heavily publicized) in most other American cities.  I don't know who put that paragraph in, but I agree that it should be modified.--Coolcaesar 22:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are riots against interracial police violence "routine" in the US? 

message: The articles
nl:Politie in Nederland
and
de:Polizei
contain lots of pretty pictures and information. Shinobu 15:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pretty pictures and more 

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

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

message: Is there some reason this section is at the top of the page? I mean right under Function in Society, we have the "Anarchist perspective"? On top of being way too prominent, this section seems to describe more of a socialist perspective than an anarchist perspective to me. "the threat to citizens' safety almost always originates from class inequality or the psychological effects of hierarchy, and that these crimes would not exist in a classless, anarchist society, since (theoretically), everyone would have access to everything they want and need, including a non-hierarchical community." Can we move this to the "Socialist" page?
: Maybe we should move the "Function in societ" further down so that it's less prominent, or something. It's not really broadly "socialist" because the revolutionary/anarchist analysis is the only socialist analysis of police that suggests they're fundamentally destructive and should be removed from society. BUT, maybe there should be more sub-sections to this? Anarchism is the only philosophy that I know of that has an overt discussion of the police's purpose in society that differentiates from the rest of political theory, all of which affirms the police's position as fundamentally (or possibly) good. But right, it probably is too prominent - but it definitely does need inclusion or at least mention here, since it's a markedly different perspective on the discussion of police. At least, I think so. Word up. Zanturaeon 06:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yo. So I gave it some thought for a little bit and came back and made some more changes to my additions. I removed the ===Anarchist perspective=== tag n' integrated that section into the main part of "function in society". Then I modified the text to represent the broad socialist perspective and the specifically anarchist analysis in proportion to the ammount of difference from the traditional view, and I also modified and moved the paragraph about charges of bigotry to the "Difficult issues" section, removing mention of socialism & anarchism excepting the opening sentence which mentions that the view of police as enforcing bigotry as being prominent among leftists. E'rybody look over and tell me what you think. I think this is much better. Word. Zanturaeon 22:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

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

message: How do people here feel about merging Police with Police officer?
--Generalcp702 00:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me. We could probably port the whole article directly into this one without making much changes, n' redirect officer to this main police article. So yeah. Zanturaeon 06:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

text: Looks like Anthony Appleyard went ahead and merged the articles and redirected Police Officer to this page. I'm confused by this, and think it was a bad change (as discussed above). I must admit I'm not very active here, and I know that Wikipedia is not a democracy but is this standard operating procedure, given that the consensus was leaning toward not merging the articles? I'm certainly not going to just revert this, and Appleyard seems like a very active and probably knowledgeable user, but I thought that Angrynight's point re: Soldier and Army was dead on (in fact, I think that argument is even stronger here). QuixoticKate 15:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've undone the merge. This page is already long enough and there's a lot that can be said about police officers. 24.127.224.173 18:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

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

message: Just dropping a line here that I reverted the article a couple edits back because someone 132.239.167.253 anonymously and without explanation deleted a section I had added. Also the edits made since then were just vandalism/fixes of vandalism, anyways. Word up. Zanturaeon 17:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fourth paragraph in "Function in Society", the one having derived from the aforementioned section, had again recently been deleted by user:JsinGood (at 10:22 April 6 2006); so I've again restored it, as there was no given or apparent reason and it apparently was vandalism. I didn't revert it as I had reverted before because the edit after his/hers was a useful link to the Commons' police material. Word up homies. Zanturaeon 04:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of section 

message: From the article:  "...the various state police forces in India extensively use the Jeep as their main mode of transport."
:This is ambiguous as the link goes to the article on the Willys-Overland Jeep brand now owned by Daimler-Chrysler.  I'm not sure Indian police typically use Jeeps, although they might use "jeeps" of some sort, SUVs, or other 4x4s. Can someone clarify this? 24.155.88.186 17:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  India and "Jeeps" 

message: I was wondering is this encyclopedic in itself and is anyone prepared to keep it updated?  And also maybe balance it with some information from jurisdictions other than N. America and the UK.  It might also benefit from being surrounded by some context (some of this already in the article), eg the arming of police, public expectation of police role or similar.  Anyway I'm not sure of the value of these figures by themselves.  Also 'line of duty' is a phrase with cultural resonance in the U.S. / N. America but not necessarily elsewhere.
-- Hakluyt bean
It would be very difficult to keep this section updated. -- Squadcar56 21:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  heading: Line of duty deaths 

message: Or even the one entered by user 24.210.64.218 which I've deleted. Among his/her past achievements a contribution to the wiki article on poop.  He/she raises an interesting point though.  Should we not have some mention of this? Nicknames I mean. Contrary to a comment earlier I can't see a section on 'Police Officer' which may be the place for it.  I also can't find Cops or Coppers?  I mean I don't need one right away but... :)-- Hakluyt bean 23:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can give you a few Dutch nicks: "smeris" (pl. "smerissen"), "juut" (pl. "juten"), "flik" (pl. "flikken"), "klabak" (pl. "klabakken"), "prinsemarij" (the police), "witte muizen" (highway police), "luis" (Leiden, pl. "luizen"), "ballenjatter" (The Hague, pl. "ballenjatters"), "bromsnor" (pl. "bromsnorren", from a TV-series(?)), "dof gajes" (plainclothesmen, more at ), there are probably more... Shinobu 12:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: And as someone pointed out, there's always the Bobby. Shinobu 08:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicknames for the Old Bill,  Coppers, Cops, Les Flics etc. 

message: I migrated the prolix info about Irish police vehicles to the Garda Síochána article; I don't think it belongs in an article about police and policing in general.
Patrol cars are mainly white, with two small blue strips and one large luminous green strip running down the centre. The Garda crest is also on the patrol cars. Garda patrol cars are identical to civilian vehicles and feature no engine or performance improvements, however higher performance cars are normally bought, ie Ford Mondeo 2.5 V6
--Ori.livneh 10:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved Vehicle Data 

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

message: There's nothing about it.  Mdoc7 04:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a stub at nl:Politie in Thailand. It's also likely that the Thai wiki has something. Unfortunately I don't speak Thai. Shinobu 03:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thailand Police 

message: There needs to be similar articles for other countries. Chris 23:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of Singapore police officers killed in the line of duty]] 

message: I just translated the article Dutch police because I wanted to put a link to it somewhere; it took longer than I thought it would.
Perhaps someone could have a fresh look at it? Never mind the redlinks, just check whether the article is clear for non-Dutch audiences. Shinobu 03:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dutch police 

message: Some of the sections in the list of Police forces by country have an image of a patrol car or something similar, while some don't. For some of the ones that don't a suitable image is available. Would it be nice to add these? Shinobu 20:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there are too many police car photos.  One (or maybe two) is enough.  The rest can go in the relevant subarticles.  This many police cars gives the impression that all police do is ride around in their cars, and don't interact with citizens.  That's less the case nowadays. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 21:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patrol car images 

message: Within the United States and other modern countries, dislike for the police force has led to a common stererotype of officers of the law as slothful, doughnut-devouring pigs. Although the term was popularized during the 1960s by political protestors who frequently found themselves at odds with the law, the origins date back further. Criminals have used the term for many years, and as far back as an 1811 reference in OED to a pig from the Bow Street Runners, an early police force. The term actually dates back to the 16th century, during which the word "pig" or "swine" was used to someone who was thoroughly disliked. In modern times, pig has become such a common idiom that a Google search reveals more than 7 million hits.
Needs proper sourcing, and I dislike the reference to Google as if it were an almighty truth-revealing entity. "The term" is not defined before usage, similary "OED". Perhaps more useful at police officer. Shinobu 00:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed para 

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

message: Posting the links here, so I don't forget them:
*nl:Politie
*nl:Politie in Nederland
*nl:BZK-Striping
Shinobu 14:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: weird it's not in there.  —Preceding 
unsigned comment added by 65.92.40.203 (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The police seek an end to capitalism and the systems which they perceived to be responsible for the exploitation of workers? --JeffJ (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

text: In simple terms, yes. And it helps if you insert your comments after those of others rather than in the middle of their sigs. --Rodhullandemu 13:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please put the marxist stuff in here somewhere 

message: Not of this article but of related articles, in particular Federal police and National Police.
With the go ahead of the Law enforcement wikiproject a purpose discussion page has been opened for the discussion of a number of merge and redirect proposals related to this article. I would appreciate any thoughts you might have, please click on the purpose discussion page link and give them there.  I would see this article becoming the main article for a new/revised category of police agencies.  Please also see the rewritten Law enforcement agency, still a work in progress, which should be the "header" article for all law enforcement agencies.  Note that Law enforcement which redirects to here should I think become a disambiguation page.  Please, all comments to the purpose wikiproject discussion page.  Thanks in advance. Pee Tern (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal / Lists to Categories 

message: There is almost nothing about the police of ancient Rome. Why? 
Jack 17 January 2007, 15:25 (UTC)
:Pobably because no one wrote it.  There needs to be a "History of policing" artice besides this one, because it's a huge and important topic. I'm curious why you think the ancient Roman police need more emphasis. Bobanny 18:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman Police 

message: There are a lot of Polish pictures all together in the same area... any particular reason for that? I didn't see any special mention of Polish policemen in that section. Maybe it's not important, but I just want to make sure.
:Yeah, I thought that was odd, too.  Could we get some more variety in the pictures, here? Endovior 05:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: I was directed to the police page from a "law enforcement" link. This is understandable since it is common these days to think of police in terms of the law enforcement aspect of their function, however the historical origins of police are in order maintenance, and the scope of their mission continues to be much wider than simply enforcing law. I think it might be better to have a law enforcement disambiguation page that includes not just police but a longer list of executive government agencies —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.41.69.33 (talk) 03:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, sort of. It's even arguable that 'order maintenance' is, or ever was, the main function of the police. It's a little academic though, no? Law enforcement agencies and police agencies are interchangeable in common usage; would a dedicated 'Law enforcement' article necessarily include different information than this article? Stop by Wikipedia:WikiProject Law Enforcement if you're interested in hashing this stuff out - there's a lot of work that needs to be done on related articles.  Bobanny 06:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, someone should tell that to the BBC and the MET, both of which seem to use "law enforcement" interchangeably with police. They became synonymous in the early 1930s in the US around the time of the Wickersham Commission, but these things tend to spread globally pretty quickly. Before that, "law enforcement" was just as likely to refer to the courts. Bobanny 17:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Just off the cuff, there is a difference. Leaving aside enforcement of the civil law, which is a matter inter partes, there are other bodies for enforcing various aspects of criminal law. Consumer protection agencies spring to mind, as do animal protection bodies, various licensing authorities, and I'm sure the list can be extended. Customs & Excise/Revenue enforcement and INS are other obvious examples. I'll think about it and see if I can work out a sensible proposal for dealing with this. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Also, "police" are often also responsible for missing persons, crowd control, traffic control, public safety and security campaigns, (general) search and resue (as distinct from specialist search and rescue, which is usually the responsibility of the "fire brigade"), etc. Police have intrusive powers to help them in this regard, but use of force is only one such intrusive power. This article seems to focus on the law enforcement side of police rather than balance their social and public order responsibilities. Also I would suggest that even in the USA "law enforcement officer" usually means "police officer", but "law enforcement agency" usually means a much broader range of entities. Perhaps the approach should be to define the types of law enforcement and the types of public and social order maintenance and then describe how these responsibilities are undertaken in various agencies throughout the world.  There is possibly also a blurred line between the responsibilities of "police" and "fire and rescue", in regard to the "rescue" bit.152.91.9.190 (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Is my suggested rewrite of Law enforcement agency in Talk:Law enforcement agency a start?152.91.9.190 (talk) 06:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policing is not identical to law enforcment 

message: I rewrote the introduction and plan to do some significant renovation of this article. If anyone's interested in helping out, please jump in, or give me feedback. Some things that need changing, IMO:
*the country break-down needs to go. It seems to serve as a place holder for general content, but is ultimately just a list that duplicates List of law enforcement agencies somewhat. At the same time, making this article relevant globally is probably the biggest challenge. 
*the "See also" section seems to be a random sample of  Category:Law enforcement and should mostly done away with. Maybe all the "Policing in ..." articles could go here, but mostly the existing entries should be wikified in the article's main text.
*A separate History of Policing article needs to be made, and that section should be reworked summary-style.
*The sections need to be rethought; not necessarily ditching the ones already here, but to try and make this article sufficiently comprehensive.
*There are quite a few good photos, but they need to be redistributed better throughout.
*References, references, references.
It might take me a while to plod through this list, but I'm making it a priority because it's the core article for WikiProject:Law enforcement and generally a pretty important topic. I'll try and respect what's already been included, but anticipate a significant amount of re-writing. Please let me know if there's any disagreement with these or other changes I make.  Thanks, Bobanny 01:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixing up this article 

message: Is it true that the police of Britain (i'm not sure about Northern Ireland) are the only police forces in the world to not carry guns on standard patrols? could this be mentioned in the article? Fwed66 14:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  police with guns 

message: There is no mention about law enforcement in Spain. There are indeed articles about the Guardia Civil and Policía Nacional on Wikipedia, but I think someone with more knowledge should write it. Anyone tempted? --Aatox 20:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request: Spain 

message: Here is a picture I took to satasfy a request for pictures on the Carson City, Nevada article:
Would this picture also be appropriate for this article or would this be more of a distraction from the purpose of this article?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nevada_Law_Enforcment_Monument.jpg
Davemeistermoab 23:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It could go here. I'd suggest Policing in the United States might be a better home for it though, since this article is already fairly cluttered and that one could use another image. But it's you're call. bobanny 23:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this picture appropriate? 

message: "In the Department of corrections they do not have SWAT (special weapons and tactics) teams, they have CIRT teams. CIRT stands for Critical Incident Response Team. CIRT responds to to most violent crimes in the most dangerous of prisons."
I've snipped this out, it did'nt seem to make much sense where it was... if it is to be included somewhere, someone more familiar with the subject matter would best weigh in. BlakJakNZ 10:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of Context Sentence Removed - Equipment  (CIRT?) 

message: Municipal police redirects here. Metropolitan police seems to refer to normal police organized in relation to cities. City guard stub I just created is about a separate phenomena, existing in Poland and quite possibly in other countries - security officials working for cities but with lower powers then normal police officers. City police redirects to City of London Police and certainly should be a disambig. Copyedit of relevant articles by editor with knowledge in that field is needed.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Municipal, metropolitan and city police / guards 

message: :uhhh....i cant see the rest of the articial...it just went away...all that shows up are the 1st 2 paragraphs. When i go into editing mode i can see the rest of it written in, but i can not find it when i go to read to read the artical outside of editing mode. Anyone know whats going on? --T Van Wormer 23:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: okay...so it is back now. im not sure what happened...w/e --T Van Wormer 23:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Happend to the artical? 

message: This page has been blanked, and I have no idea how to undo it. Some help? The Last Melon 23:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been reverted. In the future, click the 'history' tab up top, click the version before the vandalized (or blanked) version. Click 'edit this page' and save it. Alternatively, in the history tab, select the vandalized version and the one before it, click "compare the selected versions" button, and then click "undo" and then save. bobanny 02:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So it's basically a rollback. The Last Melon 06:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do you de-blank a page? 

message: How about, "Police or Law Enforcement are agents or agencies empowered to affect public and social order through various means of coercion, including force."  To me, this first sentence is better because it defines police (instead of just beginning to tell what they do) and it groups "legal coercion" and "other legal means" (which sounds redundant) into an "umbrella phrase".  What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.105.8.48 (talk) 
:How about "legally empowered"? I think the standard accepted definition, from Max Weber, is that police use legitimate force, so 'legal' or 'legitimate' should be there somewhere. I agree that "are agents..." is better because it's a definition, and I'd be happy to see "law enforcement" removed (they also help find missing children, but we don't include that in the intro). And it should be "effect" (to bring about) rather than "affect" (to cause a change in something). So with my modifications, it would read something like:
"Police are agents or agencies legally empowered to use various means of coercion, including force, to effect public and social order." Anyone else? bobanny 02:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and changed it, closer to your original suggestion. bobanny 20:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  first sentence 

message: I love this article. It's grammatically perfect (I desperately wanted to find a spelling error!) and admirable in its depth. Well done! (Hangemhigh 23:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad you like it. I used to not like it much, but it's evolved nicely since then through the efforts of quite a few contributors. It's also vandalized several times a day, but has been suprisingly stable because a lot of folks have it watchlisted and revert vandalism right away. I'd still like to see it get to featured status someday, but as it is, this is a good example of collaboration on Wikipedia. bobanny 06:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great article! 

message: Someone keeps adding a list of scholarly journals to the article and I keep removing them. They are inappropriate for a number of reasons, which are listed at WP:EL. My main reasons for reverting are: These are not accessible journals because they are not free. Some have "sample" articles, but getting at even those crumbs requires registering. Academic journals can be accessed through most public library or university library systems, and are great sources, but they should be used for adding reliably sourced content to the article, not for a mini-link farm section in the article. In any case, external links should be in the "external links" section, not a separately-tiered "academic" section. 
The same editor also keeps adding the same wikilinks to the "see also" section, including a region-specific youth program and a defunct branch of the US Dept. of Justice. The first seems to serve as promotional material for the program, and the second is esoteric trivia. Neither add anything to the article as they are both very particular and this is a very general and global subject. Other entries are similarly arbitrary and are already linked in the main body of the text (see the guideline here). Unless there's a consensus reached here to override these conventions, I will continue to revert those changes. This article has come along way from when it was  more lists than anything else and I don't want to see it revert to that.bobanny 06:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic journals list 

message: 1.1
*"other duties....was" -> "other duties....were" 
:fixed. bobanny 01:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: fixed. bobanny 01:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: fixed. bobanny 01:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: done. bobanny 01:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Not much of that other stuff back in the day. The significance is that these police were paid out of the public coffers and not working for private interests as were, for example, Englands thief-takers. bobanny 01:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: done. bobanny 01:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: fixed, I think. bobanny 01:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: fixed. bobanny 01:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: fixed. bobanny 01:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: fixed. bobanny 01:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: fixed.bobanny 01:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: fixed. bobanny 01:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: hmm...not sure, but there's no hyphen earlier in the paragraph where it's linked to an article.bobanny 01:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: done. bobanny 01:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It could probably be worded a little better, but it does spell out specific police functions that most people wouldn't associate with the police post-Adam Smith.bobanny 04:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: fixed.bobanny 04:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: fixed, I think.bobanny 04:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: *"They typically make up roughly 15% - 25% of a police service's personnel." - this is unsourced.
*"contrast to" -> "with"
:changed "by contrast to" to "in contrast to" bobanny 04:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: fixed.bobanny 04:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Personnel & Organisation

message: *Needs reference to (PACE) after wikilink because acronym of later used in the text. 
*"Incidents such as the 1965...has" -> "have"
:fixed.bobanny 04:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: right word (abrupt, steep rise). Yeah, a lot of this needs references. bobanny 04:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: shortened sentence by keeping it specific to the police. hope that helps.bobanny 04:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I removed, but moved the reference to racial profiling to beginning of that section. bobanny 04:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Restrictions upon the power of the police

message: *Whole para is unsourced, or at best unreferenced, and looks polemical.
:It wouldn't be hard to find sources confirming that poorly paid police are more likely to be corrupt, but I agree as it was, the section was POV and so removed it. bobanny 04:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Rodhullandemu. I've begun addressing some of your points, but don't have a lot of time right now, so if anyone else wants to jump in, feel free. bobanny 01:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recruitment

message: I've added a see also to a section with a link to the general article about the power of the police Police_power. That article is not in good shape - perhaps some of you with an interest can take a look at that article and see if it can be cleaned up so the tags can be removed from the backlog? AvruchTalk 19:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Police power article 

message: I've removed the nomination of this article, having failed it on the following grounds:
*Some of the language still needs to be clarified
*The article is not stable as several edits, not all minor, have been made in the last week, and
*I have not had a chance to comment on some other issues because the language one was the most pressing; however, it occurs to me that all the images are modern, and some of historical significance would improve the article.
Feel free to get a second opinion; it was so close. I will recuse myself from the next GA review because I have spent a long time reviewing it, and a fresh pair of eyes may be no bad thing. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 21:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed [[WP:GAR|Good Article Review]] 

message: Articles prior to roughly beginning of 2007 have now been archived. Link is at top of this page. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 23:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: Has anyone considered adding a criticism of socialized police forces from an economic standpoint? 
:-Thorsmitersaw - Feb 21, 2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorsmitersaw (talk • contribs) 07:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  economic criticism 

message: Should the just added Police#Hong Kong section not be here but in the Hong Kong Police article? Peet Ern (talk) 03:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just added Hong Kong section - appropriateness? 

message: The Police's "Every Breath You Take" was at number one on the charts longer than any other recorded song in history.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorby12 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most popular song 

message: Wil anybody be so nice to mention this link in this article? My English isn't good enough to dare to change an important article. Greetings from NL, Geus (talk) 00:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hoi! I doubt this would belong in this article because it is more about their history and the job they do than things they do in their spare time. There may be a better place for it, but I can't think of one right now. --Rodhullandemu 00:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[World Police Indoor Soccer Tournament]] 

message: Police, Mad, Jack's profile makes it quite clear that he is not an unbiased editor. He recently undid an extremely relevant revision featuring a consensus among great thinkers like John Locke, Adam Smith, James Madison & John Jay. He has so far refused to offer a reasonable explanation. Unless he does so--convincingly-- he should stop such behavior. Here's the revision:
Police are agents or agencies, usually of the executive, empowered to enforce the law and to effect public and social order through the legitimatized use of force. The term is most commonly associated with police departments of a state that are authorized to exercise the police power of that state within a defined legal or territorial area of responsibility. The word comes via French from the Latin politia (“civil administration”), which itself derives from the Ancient Greek πόλις, for polis ("city").[1]
The first police force comparable to present-day police was established in 1667 under King Louis XIV in France, although modern police usually trace their origins to the 1800 establishment of the Marine Police in London, the Glasgow Police, and the Napoleonic police of Paris.[2][3][4]
The first modern police force is also commonly said to be the London Metropolitan Police, established in 1829, which promoted the preventive role of police as a deterrent to urban crime and disorder.[5] Law enforcement however has only ever constituted a small portion of policing activity.[6] Policing has included an array of activities in different contexts, but the predominant ones are concerned with the preservation of order and the provision of services.[7] These are mostly related to the maintenance of an institutional order of governmental rules and prerogatives, as described by John Locke in 1690, who wrote that "[t]he great and chief end...of men's uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property"[8] Similarly, Adam Smith described how "...as the necessity of civil government gradually grows up with the acquisition of valuable property, so the principal causes which naturally introduce subordination gradually grow up with the growth of that valuable property... Wherever there is great property there is great inequality. For one very rich man there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many. The affluence of the rich excites the indignation of the poor, who are often both driven by want, and prompted by envy, to invade his possessions...The appropriation of herds and flocks which introduced an inequality of fortune was that which first gave rise to regular government. Till there be property there can be no government, the very end of which is to secure wealth, and to defend the rich from the poor"[9] This close link between property and government (and thus police function) was also noted by John Jay (who repeatedly said that "Those who own the country ought to govern it,")[10]and by US Founding Father James Madison, who declared that government "...ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority."[11] Given that the crimes of governments and associated elite institutions have historically been greater than those of the "smaller" criminals they prosecuted, and that such institutional influence has been perceived, by some groups, as a promoter of violence, alienation and socioeconomic disparity which gives rise to crime, the institutional role of police has been criticized.[12] Alternative names for police force include constabulary, gendarmerie, police department, police service, crime prevention, protective services, law enforcement agency Garda Síochána, and members can be police officers, troopers, sheriffs, constables, rangers, peace officers or Garda. Russian police and police of the Soviet-era Eastern Europe are (or were) called militsiya.
99.2.224.110 (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec)I've protected this page from any editing due to this unseemly edit war, and to protect you both from breaching WP:3RR. I suggest you take it to dispute resolution if you can't sort it out yourselves, specifically getting a third opinion. The manual of style is quite clear on what should be in the lead, however. --Rodhullandemu 17:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

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

text: I was talking to both of you; the rule is to comment on content, not editors. Some chilling on both sides might be useful, and you both have other options. --Rodhullandemu 18:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: aving a glance at it suggests it is too focused and length/detailed a segement to go in the lead, and if it is going to be included it ought to go in a section of the article itself. There is a discussion at WT:LE, which Rodhullandemu mentions above. SGGH speak! 14:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE: IP information in the lead 

message: Since it seems neither of you is willing to go to WP:3O, and I can't do it for you, I have raised this issue on the talk pages of the Law and Law Enforcement projects. Meanwhile, please stop taking it personally and deal with the content. FYI, extracts from a book, if attributed, are fair-use and can be used here. --Rodhullandemu 19:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: aving a glance at it suggests it is too focused and length/detailed a segement to go in the lead, and if it is going to be included it ought to go in a section of the article itself. There is a discussion at WT:LE, which Rodhullandemu mentions above. SGGH speak! 14:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: section break

message: Without regard to the substance, as a matter of Wikistyle, the introduction is TOO LONG. Too long introductions crappify good articles.
Now, as to the substance, the intro contains a LENGTHY discussion of THEORY, particularly quotations from Locke and Madison. This stuff is INTERESTING and TOPICAL. There is nothing wrong with it being in the article. But it should be MOVED to preserve the stylstic integrity and readability of the article. This philosophical discussion breaks up the basic information the introduction was attempting to convey. This is a bad idea.
Suggestion: Take all theoretical discussion  from "policing" (line 10) to "criticized" and MOVE it to a NEW SECTION or SUBSECTION within the article, titled something like, "theory of policing" or "philosophical views on the role of police forces." This could go in the existing CONDUCT section or become a new subsection thereafter. Pursuant to the "inverted triangle" rule of writing however, it belongs near the bottom, not to the top. Gentlemen, this is NOT a big deal. Please work it out. Come together. Let's find a consensus. Non Curat Lex (talk) 11:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As an uninvolved member of WP:LE, I wholeheartedly agree. The text - whilst good - is too long and should be moved to another section. ninety:one 13:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

text: "Frankly, I think it's irrelevant to the article. The gentlemen quoted were not talking about the police, but about general philosophical principles, so the quotes are effectively being synthesised to promote a particular point of view, which is Original Research and not acceptable on Wikipedia. It's also highly POV and assumes that the gentlemen quoted were correct - a "they said this so it must be true" presentation, which is academically insupportable. So, I agree with PMJ - there is no real place for this section in the article, and in any case certainly not in the intro. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  PMJ: I disagree with Necrothesps's opinion. While it is esoteric and outside of the functional aspect of policing, the philosophical implications of the institution are not irrelevant. Yes, relevance is a judgment call. I've made one. You've made one. They're different. How do you know what to follow? Follow CONSENSUS. There is a growing CONSENSUS that the philosophical blather can STAY as long as it is moved from the intro. Isn't that a good compromise? Non Curat Lex (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

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

message: I moved a section here from Police officer since it deals with policing in general. Feel free to edit as necessary. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A totally unsourced section while the article is under protection? Do you think that was wise? --Rodhullandemu 17:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry, there was no tag on the article and I misread the edit warning to mean that it was only under semi-protection. Anyway, I'm not endorsing the section - it just didn't belong at Police officer. If other editors think it's wrong or bad feel free to remove entirely. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Proposal for dealing with this set out in the section below, but it's starting to get messy. --Rodhullandemu 17:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved a section 

message: The institutional role of government and police has nothing to do with "philosophical principles". It is others who may be imposing their "philosophical principles" by evading information about institutional function as described by great thinkers like John Locke, Adam Smith, James Madison and John Jay; whose consensus description of the role and development of the state, by the way,  is NOT simply "opinion", but uncontroversial historical DESCRIPTIONS of the formation and functions of government. I mean, the aforementioned evasive approach is one we would never adopt in analyzing past power structures like monarchy, feudalism, colonialism etc
But anyway, I'll make a proposal: What about a new section called "Institutional Role"? e.g. the article could start like this:
Police are agents or agencies, usually of the executive, empowered to enforce the law and to effect public and social order through the legitimatized use of force. The term is most commonly associated with police departments of a state that are authorized to exercise the police power of that state within a defined legal or territorial area of responsibility. The word comes via French from the Latin politia (“civil administration”), which itself derives from the Ancient Greek πόλις, for polis ("city").[1]
The first police force comparable to present-day police was established in 1667 under King Louis XIV in France, although modern police usually trace their origins to the 1800 establishment of the Marine Police in London, the Glasgow Police, and the Napoleonic police of Paris.[2][3][4]
The first modern police force is also commonly said to be the London Metropolitan Police, established in 1829, which promoted the preventive role of police as a deterrent to urban crime and disorder.[5] Law enforcement however, only constitutes a small portion of policing activity.[6]Policing has included an array of activities in different contexts, but the predominant ones are concerned with the preservation of order and the provision of services[7] primarily within a context of maintaining a certain societal power structure.  Alternative names for police force include constabulary, gendarmerie, police department, police service, crime prevention, protective services, law enforcement agency Garda Síochána, and members can be police officers, troopers, sheriffs, constables, rangers, peace officers or Garda. Russian police and police of the Soviet-era Eastern Europe are (or were) called militsiya.
Institutional Role
The institutional role of police conforms to the maintenance of an institutional order of governmental rules and prerogatives, as described by John Locke in 1690, who wrote that "[t]he great and chief end...of men's uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property"[8] Similarly, Adam Smith described how "...as the necessity of civil government gradually grows up with the acquisition of valuable property, so the principal causes which naturally introduce subordination gradually grow up with the growth of that valuable property... Wherever there is great property there is great inequality. For one very rich man there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many. The affluence of the rich excites the indignation of the poor, who are often both driven by want, and prompted by envy, to invade his possessions...The appropriation of herds and flocks which introduced an inequality of fortune was that which first gave rise to regular government. Till there be property there can be no government, the very end of which is to secure wealth, and to defend the rich from the poor"[9] This close link between property and government (and thus police function) was also noted by John Jay (who repeatedly said that "Those who own the country ought to govern it,")[10]and by US Founding Father James Madison, who declared that government "...ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority."[11] Given that the crimes of governments and associated elite institutions have historically been greater than those of the "smaller" criminals they prosecuted, and that such institutional influence has been perceived, by some groups, as a promoter of violence, alienation and socioeconomic disparity which gives rise to crime, the institutional role of police has been criticized.[12]
 99.2.224.110 (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not wishing to step into the arena here as the protecting admin, but this content, and that just added by User:DJ Clayworth seem to be of a feather and might be more at home in Police power. I leave that open to discussion by interested parties. --Rodhullandemu 17:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

text: That does not seem bad to me. The intro proposed is better than the one we now have. The "Institutional role" seems to suffer from the misapprehension that anything a thinker says about government (in theory) also applies to the police in practice. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevertheless, Ifeel that a large chunk of long quotes on the origins of police mentality and role in society has no place in the lead, and would perhaps be best served in some sort of "original inception" section. It still seems the heading of an essay on the roles of police in society rather than an encyclopedic article on police, but perhaps with some trimming and an indication of why this content is a relevance addition rather than a collection of related quotes and OR/Essay material, it can be woven into somewhere other than the lead. SGGH speak! 18:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clear up any misunderstanding I was assuming that in the proposal above the text starting Institutional Role was intended to be a separate section, not part of the lead. If it was intended to be part of the lead I oppose it strongly. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

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

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

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

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

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

message: "In English it is nearly always pronouned "pleess", dropping the 'o'."
Is this really true? I'm pretty sure that here in the UK at least the 'o' is pronounced. Passingtramp (talk) 09:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are certainly differences in pronunciation, but it's hardly "nearly always". Pronunciation of a mundane word like "police" isn't of encyclopaedic interest (absolutely any article could have "here are some phonetic pronunciations of the word, in different countries"), so I'll remove it. --McGeddon (talk) 09:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

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

message: I added an archive box for the talk pages and reverted the page to a previous edit by Miznabot from May. Serious vandalism had occurred (see the Japanese text for yourself) and little was salvageable. Miznabot had created a talk page archive without adding an actual archive box on the page, so I myself wondered if someone mass-deleted the page. - Cyborg Ninja 23:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ouch! That's a major reversion, but I don't read Japanese so I accept that, but is there really nothing in between that is salvageable, even with  tags? It may be that if it's going to take disproportionate work to sort it out, it's better to start with a version that at least we can trust. Rodhullandemu 23:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing missing except the Japanese rambling. I thought there was more, but I checked just now and there wasn't. - Cyborg Ninja 00:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, fine, thanks. Rodhullandemu 00:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big talk page revert and new archive box 

message: Is anyone against adding a police brutality & Racism section to this article? It seems a little incomplete to have an article about cops without addressing their two most famous characteristics.--Willdw79 (talk) 00:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Police#Use_of_force covers it just fine. Brutality and racism are really not the two most famous characteristics of police; this is an encyclopedia, not a reflection of the media. ninety:one   22:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

text: "Two most famous characteristics"? Please see WP:REDFLAG. In short, no. Rodhullandemu 00:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Police Brutality & Racism 

message: I have a question:More police means less crime? What is correct level of policeman to the population? 1 police for every 100,200,300,etc. persons?Agre22 (talk) 13:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is for discussion of changes to the article, it is not a discussion forum about the police - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  More police means less crime? 

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

message: Rodhullandemu, Ninetyone, Yaris678 and MildlyMad --you all believe the police do not maintain a hierarchical order. Yet you have ALL REFUSED to respond to a statement I made:
'The dictionary defines hierarchy http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hierarchy as "any system of persons or things ranked one above another." Now, without even mentioning police power over citizens, (or economic power e.g. assuming the police-protected property of Fortune 500 owners don't rank them above a beggar), the fact is that the aforementioned "established authority" can't be denied. Unless you think that the president of the US doesn't have more power than a senator or a governor, which has more than a mayor, which has more than a Captain, which has more than a police officer etc, you can't deny we're talking about a "hierarchical" order.'
Do you not believe that this arrangement has hierarchical properties? And if you claim to not be able to look at social factors, why do you then insist on adding words that emphasize "social peace" or "public interest" etc? 69.228.251.134 (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:NOTFORUM. Rodhullandemu 21:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

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

text: Where is this mythical consensus? I don't see it, and I dispute such a consensus exists. This is just your words again. Rodhullandemu 22:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So far we have 2 people in favour of civil disorder (myself and Mildly Mad) and one person in favour of social order (the ISP).  Yaris678 (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ... and myself in favour of civil disorder, since that's what I've been arguing. Consensus would appear to be clear thus far, then. Rodhullandemu 23:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

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

text: Yep, we're clearly all sheeple, and IP134 is the only one that knows WP:The Truth. Mildly MadTC 05:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Unanswered argument for the proposal of "hierarchical order"

message: I have a number of criticisms of the Overview section.
*The "milestones" at the beginning seem to be in the wrong place.  Surely this is part of the History section.
*Statement about how the police in the 18th and 19th century "developed in the context of maintaining the class system".  What does this mean?  Was that their purpose?  Was that their effect?  The phrase is so woolly, "developed in the context" could mean that "maintaining the class system" was something they were opposing.  It would help if someone who had access to the cited reference could check what is actually said.
*The stuff about the different words for police could be put in a section called Terminology, along with the bit about the etymology of the term, currently in the lead.
*Are garda and militsiya really alternative names for police?  Or are they just words for police in other languages (Irish and Russian)?
Yaris678 (talk) 12:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overview section (old comment) 

message: An IP wants to state that police are empowered to reduce threats to the establishment.  This seems like a particular point of view to me, rather than a statement of fact.  If you think otherwise, please explain yourself here.
Yaris678 (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In one sense, it's a truism--a threat to 'civil order' is a threat to the establishment, so why add a redundant statement? The IP editor, however, seems to be putting a viewpoint (aka POV)--that protection of 'the establishment' (which seems not to include him/her) is reprehensible and thus needs to be aired in Wikipedia. OK, I can relate to the anti-cop sentiment, but Wikipedia is NOT the place for 'letters to the editor'. Also, this article is about police generally, not just the police of a particular country or town. I would think that, eg, military police do quite a different job from protecting 'the establishment'. They might be doing their work halfway across the world from the bureaucrats who set them up. There's no doubt it's a minority POV and I've again reverted it as such (and will continue to do so unless the IP editor puts up a good argument and obtains something like consensus). Cheers Bjenks (talk) 10:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

text: From an outside person to this discussion I have to say that you are pushing the most biast view point User:69.228.251.134. What you are trying to push is not encycopedic at all. I see no real sources for your view point. --Guerillero (talk) 02:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, and this matter is now at WP:ANI#Police for wider examination. Rodhullandemu 02:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would hazard a guess that the IP got a speeding ticket and is annoyed about it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's THE TRUTH all right, or perhaps he has read that "a nation is that which has the monopoly of violence". I agree with Rodhullandemus assessment. I'll restart WP:LE's efforts to watch this one. SGGH ping! 13:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Threats to the establishment 

message: Apparently political disputes between editors are often based on different underlying assumptions about how things are done in Wikipedia. It's easy to form a belief that an opposing editor is an unreasonable political extremist even though the main difference may be that they have some fundamentally different ideas about encyclopedias.
In this case I think the underlying difference is as in the title of this section. Perhaps making it explicit leads us to an amicable solution of the current dispute.
For groups and organisations that notoriously don't live up to their own standards, the decision whether we describe them as they are supposed to be or as they are in practice is crucial.
Sometimes the most natural description is neutral:
:The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest judicial body in the United States, and leads the federal judiciary.
This is descriptive and prescriptive. A prescriptive definition might add that the SCOTUS makes an important contribution to the proper functioning of the US' court system, including aspects such as consistent application of the law. A descriptive definition might instead add that the SCOTUS gives the President and the Senate limited long-term control of the interpretation of the law, even going so far as to creatively reinterpret obsolete old laws and decisions that make no sense outside their original context in order create new rules that would have no chance of being passed as new laws by the legislative.
For a number of reasons there is also a gap between what the police is supposed to be and do, and what it is and does in practice. How big and important this gap is varies widely, not just between countries and different kinds of police within, but even on a local level. There is a huge difference between the incredibly obliging manner in which I, a foreigner, was treated by the British Transport Police when caught with a seriously overloaded car, and the way police even in the UK often malfunctions when dealing with its own problems, such as the Jean Charles de Menezes case or even relatively harmless cases such as this travesty.
I think in such cases we should generally use a prescriptive definition, but mention applicable descriptions as well. Practices such as severe overuse of potentially lethal "crowd control" techniques appear to be a common trait of almost all police forces in the world. Yet this is generally regarded as a failure of the police rather than its proper role. Consider a definition of the police that is carefully crafted to include tazering pregnant women who do not pose a risk to anybody (or confused Polish immigrants at an airport), arresting five-year-olds who are in a temper tantrum, illegal racial profiling, establishing "free speech zones", or this as normal functions. Such a definition may be perfectly correct as a descriptive definition. But it would be severely misleading. There is almost universal agreement that police acting in this way is stepping outside its core function. When it does so too regularly, too openly, and with too little repercussions, then this is seen as a perversion of police. Obvious examples would be the Gestapo or indeed any police force of a totalitarian state.
Should we rewrite the definition of "police" so that it includes the principal role of police in a totalitarian state? I don't think so. But this de facto function of police must be mentioned in some way. Currently it seems to be swept under the carpet. Hans Adler 09:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree entirely with Hans.  We need a definition of the Police which describes what they are supposed to be for.  The other stuff can be mentioned later.  Perhaps in a section called something like "Abuse of power".  It can talk about individual police abusing power, the police as a group closing ranks to protect their own and the abuse of the police power that the state has, by those high up in the state.  Yaris678 (talk) 10:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for making my point much more concisely. Hans Adler 11:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My pleasure.  :-)  Yaris678 (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are encyclopedia definitions prescriptive or descriptive? 

message: I'll quote from the "original research" entry:
"To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."
I find it outrageous that some editors here will take platitudes about police function (e.g. "our mission is to bla bla") as proof!!! Such interpretations/conclusions, unless backed by evidence, THEMSELVES constitute WP:OR and WP:TRUTH -- often more extreme than usual if the platitudes come from an interested party. To give you a rather obvious example that we can all understand, if I were to cite the platitudes of police departments of say, fascist Italy, as "proof" of their function and disregard actual statistics/data related to their function, you would (quite justifiably) not take me seriously--especially if I insisted that anybody disregarding these platitudes is engaging in original research. That'd be turning reality on its head. Same when dealing with, say, giving credibility (as Rodhullandemu did) to the 1316 monarchical (read totalitarian) government decision to describe police function with rosy, euphemistic (and laughable) epithets like "peace officers" or "maintaining the Queen's Peace".
This remains true when dealing with any government platitudes in modern western states. The burden of proof should be on the platitudes of authority figures, not on reliable statistics and data.  These, as I showed in the last posts, overwhelmingly show that legal codifications and police function/discretionary powers deal primarily with protection/regulation of property. Any statement that leans toward platitudes as opposed to this evidence, constitutes WP:OR and WP:TRUTH. This includes, as I proved, reiterating "reduce civil disorder" instead of protection of property when describing police function. 69.228.251.134 (talk) 03:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please also read WP:FRINGE. Consensus is clearly against you and all of your "evidence" so far has constituted original synthesis.  If you can provide a source that directly states what you are arguing, we can add the information.  Otherwise, please stop. Mildly MadTC 03:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That guy's still at it? My guess is he got a speeding ticket once and wasn't happy about having to pay the fine and have his insurance rates go up. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to know what that guy thinks is wrong with protecting property. Or is he one of those who believes people shouldn't have the right to own stuff? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Police function: platitudes vs. evidence 

message: Mildly Mad says "If you can provide a source that directly states what you are arguing, we can add the information."
OK, the police-recorded evidence I've provided that
"The majority of crimes are property related" Source: http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/statistics/statistics080a.htm confirmed worldwide here: Global Trends in Crime. Source: http://www.allbusiness.com/professional-scientific/scientific-research/524294-1.html warrants at the very least, the following addition to the lead:
The police are people empowered to enforce the law, combat property crime and civil disorder. 
This seems like a conservative proposal we can all agree with.
69.228.251.134 (talk) 04:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What's wrong with protecting property? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

text: It would read better as "...protect property and preserve (or maintain) civil order." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are happy with the edit you have made, then we can draw a line under all this discussion. SGGH ping! 22:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: yes --Guerillero (talk) 06:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservative proposal 

message: Any particular reason why a picture of an American police car was replaced by one from Romania?  I'm not really bothered either way, but looking at the first few pictures, you could now be forgiven for thinking that the Police are confined to central and eastern Europe.  Yaris678 (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect it's an attempt to counter any American-centric focus in the article. Photographs of police are fairly common so I think we should be fairly selective. Dozens of photos of police cars aren't necessary given that most people know what one looks like - they would be better served in the articles on that respective country's force or state's force. I think we should keep only the best photographs of police related topics on this article. Is there one of Peel? SGGH ping! 22:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  image:Politiabmw1.jpg 

message: This section is superfluous IMO, there is nothing there that can't be in a history section. Overview sections are like super-lead sections, and I propose this be deleted and useful content relocated to the lead or the history sections as appropriate. SGGH ping! 11:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Yaris678 (talk) 12:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overview section 

message: there is something messed up with the section on the founding of the London police  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mph703 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, thanks. --S.G.(GH) ping! 14:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  messed up 

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

message: This software must work with connection with satellites and GSM network and have also a server that must search photo of criminal offender or save voice from the first time that hear criminal offender's voice. 
This softwere must work looks like below:
- Software connect to the sattelites and GSM network and automatic listen about criminal offender's voice if talk at any telephone or mobile phone(This software automaticly must boost or lower voice for normalisation of a sound for clear sense). Also, this software, begin search of this criminal offender's photo if have in Police server's. Critical point about this softwere is: If not photo about this criminal offender, this softwere must record(save it to server or to nestle voice in PC memory at any time so must be optional in this point) this sound also and search his(her) voice from nearly any open phone or mobile phone(softwere must sense criminal offender's voice at any phone)...
netiq69  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Netiq69 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Police Software for PC, about search criminal offender 

message: I saw this situation on our country's (Turkey) CNBC-E tv channel's american criminal serie on TV.
Situation is: Hobble see man's face at full time and PC Softwere tracking man's face. But problem about in my estimation is that, Hobble's image speed is low and PC Police Softwere face tracking is slow too. My idea is to make one program in Assambly program language that tracking criminal offender's face in full speed Hobble's image at full time. Solution about Hobble's image see is looks like a critical problem but, if electronically boost speed of electromagnetic wave, will fully solution about Hobble's image sending image signal to Police centre.
I thing that my softwere idea is a full solution. So solution about Hobble is secondary problem that at any time must make full speed image see face of criminal offender: Secound solution that about Hobble is electronical solution, I want to write it again: Must boost electromagnetical wave speed in fixed Hobble's electronical PCB's. Electronical Enigeneer knows that this must with high frequency image sending from Hobble.
netiq69  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Netiq69 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syncronisation problem when search criminal offender, between Hobble and PC Softwere 

message: This software may be must "add on" on program. This "add on" must sense with a 3D software method. Face of criminal offender must search with 3D spiders web. This adding help to sense probability about criminal offender's fixed face options.
netiq69  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Netiq69 (talk • contribs) 12:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is for discussing the article only. If you are just plugging your own ideas on software solution you must do it elsewhere. S.G.(GH) ping! 12:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idea about Police PC Softwere about search criminal offender's face if it is differend in next situation (mustages, nervous face e.t.c.) 

message: The section on "Power Restrictions" contains a couple of misleading ambiguities with respect to mentions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which applies only to England & Wales: Scotland has its own quite separate and distinct civil and criminal legal systems.
217.169.14.81 (talk) 05:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review and improve on [ these changes] which partly address your concern. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Power Restrictions - requires amendment 

message: I find that "Criminal Investigation" is redirected to this entry. So I think this redirect is improper and the two entries should be separated. Because the job of police is broad, much more than just criminal investigation. Further, those who take part in criminal investigation are not necessarily police. Private detectives can also do the same job. So it will be misleading of this redirect.--Aronlee90 (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi. Like the user above, I too was redirected from "criminal investigation" to here, which is wrong. In countries with an inquisitorial legal system, the court is actively involved in the investigation as part of the court process before the trial. Best regards, Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Criminal Investigation