Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law Enforcement/Archive 1

message: Lately, I have been working on criminology topics which is an area that Wikipedia sorely lacks. Last weekend, I discovered there was no article on "Gun violence", so started one. Most of the research literature pertains to the United States, so the article has become Gun violence in the United States. Obviously, people have strong POV on this topic. To try and rise above politics, I have only included the highest quality reliable sources (mainly peer reviewed, scholarly journals). Personally, I really don't have a POV on this topic, and am staying out of the Gun politics in the United States article.  With the gun violence article, I have stayed with presenting the current state of research on this topic. I think is close to featured status, though some "gun rights" folks have already come along and place a neutrality tag on the article. I could really use some peer review on the article, at this point. Do you at all agree with the person who placed the neutrality tag? Any suggestions on making in more NPOV.  In reality, I feel that the article deals fairly with both POVs, citing strategies advocated by gun-control folks as ineffective, while citing some strategies advocated by the Bush administration as effective.  Do you have any suggestions on improving the article? are there aspects of the topic that are missing? Any help would be greatly appreciated. I have filed a formal peer request here, though feel free to leave comments on the article talk page if you prefer. Thanks. --Aude (talk) 13:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: this article was seemingly arbitrarily awarded A class status, though I can find no discussion relating to this rating. However, I did find that it passed GA review, so I have re-rated it as GA, as that is the correct rating as far as I can see, and I have left a message on the userpage of the user who added the AClass rating asking him to point out something I must be missing...SGGH 11:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request - [[Gun violence in the United States]] 

message: On FBI related articles I would ask if your template would go below the FBI once for the hierarchy scheme. I already fixed a few. Also I would like to extend an invitation to get the FBI article to FA status. --Shane (talk/contrib) 20:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Header + Info 

message: An article which I wrote on William David Allan, an extremely senior British police officer of the 1920s and 1930s, has been proposed for deletion on the grounds that he's "not notable". If this deletion goes ahead then I fear it could lead to more articles on senior police officers of the past being nominated for deletion on the gounds that nobody today has heard of them and there aren't the links to external webpages that the deletionists (falsely) seem to think are necessary for an article to exist (my information mostly comes from The Times). Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William David Allan. Thanks. -- Necrothesp 02:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made a contribution to the arguement, however there are other things that can be done to boost the articles merits, even if the outcome is keep it would be good to have more references and more detail, we are in danger of spreading too thinly in places. Good work!--SGGH 17:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now fully referenced. I couldn't find any more detail, sadly, but may be able to in the future. Information about police officers in history is rarely easy to find, which is why Wikipedia is an invaluable resource. I tend to come across information coincidentally and then add it, but without a basic article to add it to I can't do this. -- Necrothesp 18:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are your thoughts on newspapers as references? I'm not 100% keen on them, though I know that often they are the onyl source of information, and for dates and things they are pretty reliable, its just that an article almost totally references to newspapers seems a little iffy. Not that I don't think this particular article had anything wrong with it, of course. Someone could always email the police, im sure they have ahistory archive somewhere. I remember when I wrote the article on Lowell English I emailed the American national archives or somewhere and they scanned in a whole set of info on him for me, which was cool.--SGGH 17:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles for deletion

message: Should there be an article on what police officers / law enforcement officials wear whilst on duty? (e.g type of shirts, trousers, insignia, duty equipment)
I am in favour of this article but i am also worried that it might lead to terrorist cells to be imposter police officers
Please give me your views and then we will decide what to do about the uniform article.
Regards
Dep. Garcia (Talk to Me) 21:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is better handled in articles about individual police forces (or individual countries if appropriate), since it varies so widely. See Uniforms and equipment of the British police, for instance. I really don't think we're going to give terrorists any information they don't already have - after all, all they've got to do is go out on the streets and look at a policeman to determine what he wears! -- Necrothesp 22:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, have seen two people dressed as police officers in my time, directing people and pretending, though both of them just had aspirations to be the real thing. --SGGH 17:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean they were special constables? ;) (it's okay, I'm one too). -- Necrothesp 17:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uniform? 

message: I've tried my best setting this project up, but I'm afraid I don't know how to expand it much further regarding more devealoped assessment techniques, sub-pages, awards and all the other technical aspects of setting up the project itself. I can't even work out how to make the bullitin board stop expanding over the goals section when I add things to it! If any other member would be kind enough to help me out with setting up the more technical side of things (and fix that box) would be greatly appreciated.--SGGH 17:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project setting up 

message: Have also come up with an idea from a project award. Let me know your thoughts/ideas/contributions
:That is an excellent idea, wikipedians who work on this project deserve to be recongnised for their contributions. I am in favour of this award !!! Dep. Garcia (Talk to Me) 19:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Award idea 

message: left|thumb|I hereby present you with the Law Enforcement Wikiproject's Achievement Award for your excellent contributions to Wikipedia's coverage of Law Enforcement topics.
What you think?--SGGH 19:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added the scales to the background. If there are no objections then this will be the one we use for now?--SGGH 14:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Sigh...why do our award look like a militia-inspired badge? :D--Huaiwei 17:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think theres plenty of work for all of us to be doing :D and there will be many reasons to award these medals soon. That editor review thing looks nifty, I might ask for one!--SGGH 17:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Award

message: Hi Guys, I know my name is at the top of the member list, but I have to say that I just dont have the time to Preside over you lot. Just in case there is some formality that has to be observed, but that I dont know about, I oficially hand over leadership of this project to SSGH, the next member down. I will still try and help when I can, and will be willing to do stuff if I have the time. On afterthoughts, perhaps a title like "Chancellor" would be nice, just like in universities, where the Chancellor is just for show, but the "Vice Chancellor" (or any other title you want) is the actual big cheese.
By the way, this project has a bit of a bad history. It was started way back by someone else, not me. I put in alot of work into it, and then the then-leader of the project started vandalising, and so on, and left the project, and I have no idea of what happened next.
Thanks for your time, and I wish this all the best,
--Chachu207 ::: Talk to me 19:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could have police style titles like "Captain" and "Commander-in-Chief" or even "Chief of Police"... that would be cool but this isnt really the place for this, so im sorry guys save this for work lol Dep. Garcia (Talk to Me) 21:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, do what you want Guys. I'll still pop in from time to time, but remember that SSGH is the big boss now! --Chachu207 ::: Talk to me 08:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's unfortunate that I was away with no internet access for all of last week and missed this, but Im very grateful for the opportuniy to lead a project, and will try my very best. Nevertheless, your advice and contributions will probably be more important than my own :)--SGGH 10:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've placed my name at the top, and Chachu207's just below in compliance with is wishes.--SGGH 10:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leadership 

message: I want to help, but I am unsure what to do. Can someone please help me? Thanks, Asher Heimermann 02:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need Help 

message: Can somebody explain why Graphology was selected to be part of WikiProject Law Enforcement? 
Amber luxor 22:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. Perhaps analysis of a suspect's mental state from his handwriting? --Chachu207 ::: Talk to me 16:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In actual fact, this article doesn't really fall into out project, however the article links to Questioned document examination which does.--SGGH 15:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was article selected? 

message: * The "WikiProject Law Enforcement" banner should probably belong on articles' talk pages, instead of their main pages, and
* The bot itself should be revised so that main pages, rather than talk pages, end up in the Unassessed Articles list.  38.100.34.2 18:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone could contact the bot we use to sort this out, that would be really appreciated, I'll try when iv sorted out other things that have cropped up while i was away. But as far as i know, the banners are on the talk pages. Has someone been putting them on the article? All wikiprojects place the talk pages in the catagories, and if the banner has been placed on the article page itself instead of the talk page, then thats purely in error, and i don't think the bot as done it as I have checked its pages and they have banners on their talkies--SGGH 10:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for improvement 

message: I'm having a hard time with improving this article because of very limited feedback, despite an RfC. I would rather work collaboratively on such a controversial subject. Any extra eyes, thoughts, and contributions would be appreciated. Thanks. --Ginkgo100 talk 21:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Police brutality]] 

message: Is there a law enforcement infobox template that we could use for our page? I'm working on the NJ State Police. Thanks. --Editcml 14:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't at this moment in time, we will have to open a discussion about it.--SGGH 10:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I went ahead and set one up for the New Jersey State Police that is based on one created for a orginzation. I'm not sure if I have enough information in it or not, but it's a place to start. These are the headings: Headquarters, Membership, Current Superintendent, and Founded --68.192.72.94 15:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good, can it be set up so it can be used en-mass for police force articles?--SGGH 20:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. I'll try to work on that. --Editcml 18:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Brilliant!--SGGH 12:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox Template

message: I've set up a peer review dept as best I can, though its a little confusing at the moment and so far it doesnt create a sub sub page for each article wishing to be reviewed, we just list them there, I have altered the project banner so it doesnt link to non-existent subpages too. Eventually, we will have to set it so sub subs are set up for each article, and that the banner links to the right sub page, but at the moment thats too much of a headache for me :D. Programming the header gives me a headache, ironically. But anyway, iv tinkered with the rest of the project and i think its running better. We will see what happens, we can always of course (hopefully anyway) call in a user with alot of code knowledge to help streamline the operation.--SGGH 15:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we did have a major catagory problem, but it seems to have healed itself part way through my request for help from the techno-help desk, weird, but good nonetheless--SGGH 16:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review 

message: Other than such articles as Security police and Company police, are we including security articles such as Security Guard and Security Companies that held private police forces? I consider security and LE to be two seperate things with similar job descriptions (protection of persons and property and enforcement of rules or laws depending on contractual requirements). Pyrogen 21:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is difficult to decide where the boundaries are for this project, one could argue that yes, private security services are not official law enforcement organisations, however one can also say that security forces protect organisations from theft, attack and so on, and that is enforcing the law. The trouble is, the law enforcement catagory extends to things that I wouldn't put in this project, for example the bot is instructed to ignore all law enforcement catagories that come under the sub catagory of military police.--SGGH 11:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles for Security 

message: I see that Crimestoppers International Foundation has been tagged for deletion using the Template:Prod method on 4 December.  This means that it might be deleted within the next 24 hours without intervention by an interested party.  I'm noting this here as this WikiProject has a banner affixed to the talk page of the article in question - and I believe that the organization is sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 05:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.Bobanny 06:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good quick response :) SGGH 15:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prod warning: Crimestoppers International Foundation

message: HELP! I really need help saving this. He was killed 1 mile from where I live and I'm not a police expert, though I did write this. Please help save it. I've added your project tag to it too.Rlevse 22:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a strong keep, its worrying seeing users picking off some articles.SGGH 13:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Help Save [[Rodney Pocceschi]] article

message: I was suprised that Emergency Responder has not been made into an article. Since LEO's are Emergency responders, would it be under our project? Jeff503 01:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like it would be, but take care to make a thorough search of wikipedia for other articles that would cover it. If we repeat ourselves it will just get AfD'd, and theres problems with that in some of our articles anyway, as notoriety seems to be lacking in places. SGGH 09:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Jurisdiction 

message: Could someone also check the comments i have made at:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law Enforcement/Peer review
Have a Merry Christmas & Happy New Year everyone
See you soon
Dep. Garcia (Talk) (Help Desk) 21:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took away the banner cause it added this talk page to the inactive wikipedia user catagory... lol SGGH 20:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For Everyone's Information 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention.  Badbilltucker 23:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards