Talk:Security police

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

message: Needs some headings or something to make it more reader friendly and wiki. QUESTION: Does this include "company police"? For example Henry Ford's strikebreaking thugs? Is this term in common usage in the US? I watch a lot of Yankee TV and movies, and its not a familiar term. Seems to be a catch all for non-regular cops.Bobanny 08:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - see my further comments below. Peet Ern (talk) 05:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

text: PS - Some in line references to where the term is used might help.  Peet Ern (talk) 05:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Term/title

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

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

message: This is an incredibly confusing article that wends its way through personal opinion to bias, taking a short detour through nonsense.
I worked in one of the law enforcement agencies named for over 25 years (U.S.).  Not once did we ever refer to ourselves as "Security Police." Not once did anyone else in law enforcement refer to us as "Security Police." Not once were we referred to by media, politicians or the public as "Security Police." There was no law that declared us to be or set us apart as "Security Police."
My first reaction was that this was a nonsensical attempt at creating a classification that wasn't necessary.  The more I read into it, I realized that this article seems to be a misguided attempt to take a UK local term and somehow give it world-wide meaning by bootstrapping other agency roles to fit a narrow definition. And, the suggestion that Wackenhut should be included in this definition not only further complicates things (how can civilian non-police be considered as police of any sort?) simply boggles the mind.
Can we just close this down as being too ambitious a definition stretch and simply not needed? 68.32.246.239 (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doesn't need a re-write; needs a DELETE! 

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

message: This article is full of irrelevant POV forks about what may or may not be considered "security police" it should confine itself to describing only organisations that describe themselves as security police, as an exact phrase, or to a history of the term. At the moment this is basically a rambling treatise, overly padded with irrelevant trivia about police organisations that in some cases are missing even the most tenuous link to the subject at hand. In any case its claims should be backed up by reliable sources rather than the author's own personal narrative. Bellerophon talk to me 23:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is total WP:OR and should be deleted. Period. oknazevad (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree.  I've edited this article a few times and have noticed what a free-for-all it is.  Some articles just lend themselves to being big blogs of unsourced half-truths.  Not sure how to fix it.  Magnolia677 (talk) 03:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Essay-like

message: This article has bothered me for years. I’ve re-written the intro, although it’s still essentially pure WP:OR. In the meantime, I at least tried to write it so it’s a bit more concise and encyclopedic-sounding. Any assistance with writing or — more importantly — gathering sources, would be immensely appreciated.
I do not believe that this article should be deleted. However, apart from the WP:OR issues — which I believe can be overcome — the other big issue — and the reason this article was discussed to be deleted years back — is the fact that “security police” can be divided into two groups; Sworn LEOs whom essentially function as security guards and state intelligence-security apparatuses.
In the past, the general sentiment was to either delete this article completely or to make it solely about the aforementioned intelligence-security apparatuses.
My contention is that we should keep this article about ‘traditional’ security police, and create a new article of “State security police” or something along those lines. We could outline specific agencies that often use/are referred to by this term.
Thoughts? MWFwiki (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attempting Re-Write/Splitting the Article 

message: Apokrif (talk) 11:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should "The number of sworn police officers in Sweden were" be replaced with "The number of sworn police officers in Sweden was"?