Talk:New Zealand Police

message: Specifically I was thinking a photo of a police officer. Richard001 (talk) 10:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: No doubt there has been some controversy regarding the NZ Police, but these things must be seen in perspective. Wikipedia is an international site and these issues do not have a place in this article. If necessary, make a seperate article with "New Zealand Police controversies". As a Kiwi, I find the contributions to this encyclopedia by my fellow countrymen to occasionaly be mildly ignorant and show a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is trying to achieve, especially ones that read like it's a tourist brochure and point out something like "the shop around the corner from X sells very good coffee". Reading this article I have the same gut feeling. No other country's police service is portrayed in this way here, despite the fact that many are much worse. Though the fact that the controversies are here does say one good thing about the New Zealand Police. They don't have many people who edit Wikipedia articles while at work. *I'm looking at you NZQA* Globo (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Controversies

message: If someone with reasonable knowledge of current recruitment versus attrition could provide factual figures to this article. I have an unsubstanciated figure of 1500 people leaving the New Zealand Police force recently while 1000 front line staff were promised in the recent election.
There has been some discussion that the 1000 additional staff may not all be sworn officers 
:219.89.177.137 02:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zven 10:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Recruits

message: I have moved the details of the 111 controversy to 1-1-1 as I think it is more appropriate there. -- FP <talk><edits> 08:05, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
:I disagree. The controversy concerns the performance of the Police Communications Centres and the Police operational response to calls for assistance. Although many of the calls came via the 111 system, not all of them did, and the issues dealt with were much more about the Police and had very little to do with the 111 system, other than the Police's performance answering 111 calls. I propose moving the content back and changing the heading to be more appropriate. -- Cameron Dewe 07:56, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 111 details

message: Is the Motorway Patrol a seperate unit or part of the Highway Patrol unit or just another name for the Highway Patrol unit? Nil Einne 12:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Motorway Patrol

message: I will start putting in content (when I get time) about the taser trial commencement, opposition to (briefly identifying opposing groups) , and first use of in New Zealand, possibly including reported family response to its use. I will put it under the controversies header for now, but that may not be the most appropriate header. --Zven 19:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel this should be a separate section, not within Controversies. I'm not disputing that the use of tasers is controversial, but it doesn't seem to me to fit within that section.-gadfium 09:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Moved --Zven 10:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Taser trial period

message: Other linkout sources need to be converted to references... --Zven 07:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok started this, but all references need to refer to the article title, Author, Source and date --Zven 09:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Need a flag again since the image has been deleted by someone --Zven 21:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Police flag image

message: NZ police that are partroling airports are now carrying firearms. (handgun/pistol)  im pretty sure that its just airports that handle international operations.
:: Noted On this site that Police at Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch Airports (being those for International Operations) have a requirement for armed police under the Civil Aviation Act.  I had a very brief peruse and can't find the clause, if you wanna read the whole thing - be my guest :) BlakJakNZ 10:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  airport patrols packing. 

message: Is it about time that this section was edited and updated? The items listed are isolated and mostly very old news but the space and detail devoted to them gives an unbalanced focus to the article. The New Zealand Police force has its faults but it deserves less biased reporting than this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.246.12.89 (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I've reduced the detail in the Communications_Centres_performance section significantly. The Historic_sexual_misconduct section should be similarly condensed, with the references moved to Louise Nicholas. What happened to the trial of the same men for a different alleged incident?-gadfium 07:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update of Controversies Section needed?  

message: Who put that in? It is completely false and there is nothing to back it up!
::You've stated its completely false yet you've not cited any evidence to back THAT up.  I added the CTTAG reference - 'Counter Terrorist' seems self explanitory. I take it there isn't sufficient reference in the media about the Role of CTTAG (Or here) to cite the use of CTTAG at all?   This especially noting that if you search for CTTAG on Wikipedia, the hit is within the NZSAS article and thus the tie in is quite clear, and also noting the likelyhood that 'operational' SAS are far more likely to see overseas action than CTTAG (based on the aforementioned NZ Herald articles) and therefore one can guess that CTTAG members will see operational service in the area of expertise they hold (Counter Terrorism)? I've put it back how it was, if you can cite some evidence of your assertion that it is 'completely false' then please do... BlakJakNZ 09:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Another thought. You say no precedent exists to cite the use of CTTAG.  That of course means that theres no been no activation of the CTTAG since its formation, which is a relatively recent development. defensenews.com has an article of early December 2006 noting "While 1 NZSAS will continue to deliver the current range of special forces capabilities, CTTAG will specialize in domestic counterterrorism. Personnel from all three services are being encouraged to take up the challenge of becoming a member of the CTTAG." and further noting "The unit becomes operational this month when it attains the directed level of capability.". Whilst I concur we've not yet heard of CTTAG being used in anger, this doesn't discount the fact that they should be mentioned.... I have/had preserved the references to the SAS noting that CTTAG are a part of 1NZSASGp, as a deliberate bow to the SAS role and the fact that we really havn't seen the group respond to a domestic terrorism callout yet. BlakJakNZ 10:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  STG better trained than CTTAG?  Interesting assertion - citation please! :-)  Seriously, the fact there is no precedent is probably a good thing, but the fact remains that the CTTAG was formed with this very purpose in mind, which allows (among other things) the SAS to be tasked with military (actual special-forces) jobs which may take them overseas, but leaving a dedicated (and trained) force behind to deal with the role of Police Assistance and Anti-Terrorism. The Existance and purpose of CTTAG is documented in the media and as such I think its fair to mention them, but who knows - perhaps if the Military is called upon to assist Police at some stage, we'll then have some actual precedent to cite. BlakJakNZ 07:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting conversation regarding CTTAG and STG use. These are obviously reasonably secretive organisations and I'm sure indisputible evidence about their role, structure, and purpose will be hard to come by. From my curiousity regarding this subject I stumbled across some reports that said that the STG will be deployed to help NSW police with regard to bomb threats, intelligence and increased counterterrorism capabilty during this years APEC summit. I cannot remember where I read it exactly as it was when I was (very) bored and aimlessly scrolling during a lull at work. I can however provide some anectdotal evidence about the SAS as when I was last in NZ I worked for a former SAS Major who is also a good friend. He seemed to imply that the SAS primary role was intelligence gathering and deep recon for long periods unaided - hence the absolutely killer selection process candidates go through. Could it therefore be possible that the CTTAG was formed with the primary purpose of being deployed overseas in places such as Timor/Afghanistan to act in a counter terrorism role in those theatres that the SAS doesn't currently cater to? or if it does is so overstreched with its primary role that this force had to be created? In saying all of this however I'm sure that the CTTAG would be deployed on home soil if need be. As I understand it there is currently a documentary series running on TV3 in New Zealand regarding the SAS. Unfortunately on demand tv doesn't seem to be available from where I am so haven't been able to see it. Maybe someone who has would help answer these questions? 84.233.131.60 16:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Scince im a nz military enthusiast i think i can point out a few things regarding these questions. The STG and CTTAG are seperate organisations, the STG is part of the police, while CTTAG is part of the NZSAS.  The CTTAG has the role of responding to terrorist incidents in New Zealand as part of the SAS role in support of the New Zealand Police. This group focuses on forced entry, and urban combat / counter terrorisim. CTTAG is officially part of the NZSAS but members by pass the selection and training courses, and are not permitted to wear the uniform of the NZSAS (eg, being 'badged'). I Beleive the STG is part of the police, but is a unit ranked before the CTTAG. Both units are also inserted via RNZAF Helicopters, but CTTAG are self deployable with their own vehicles and air support from the RNZAF, while STG will often use standard police vehicles and occationally the NZSAS style blacked out 4x4. There is somewhat alot of confusion but an easy way to explain it is like a a ladder or stages, Police - Armed Offenders Sqaud - Special Tactics Group -Counter Terrorism Tactical Assault Group and finaly the actual NZSAS.. But overall, i do think that ' are STG & CTTAG are similar or the same' is a good question.. There is also reason to beleive that STG could just be a term to cover the identity of CTTAG.. Either way i think NZ has plenty of defence against armed offenders and terrorisim.. - 202.150.112.91 03:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  STG is a Police specialist unit, as per The NZ Police Website - already cited in this article.  Its also noted in the references to CTTAG - a unit of the 1NZSAS Group -  that they pass a shorter, abbreviated version of the SAS training course.  Drawing direct comparison as you've done seems inappropriate, one is a Police organisation, the other a Military one. This explains their means of self-deploy (via Police or Military)  Finally theres the fact that STG have existed for quite some time whilst CTTAG are relatively new - this also observable based on media coverage if you search.  Eg, I think you've not got it 'quite right' though if you'd like to cite some references.... noted this is meant to be encyclopediac, you'd need to prove your assertions above for them to be of value here. BlakJakNZ 08:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: CTTAG

message: I have been prompted into editing this page after first viewing it to compare New Zealand police firearms policy in comparison to the United Kingdon's especially after recent media acitivity here in the UK (I am a homesick kiwi!) with regard to firearms and taser usage. I felt that the firearms section could be improved on and have made some recent edits. I do however feel that more could be improved so please discuss this. Also I feel the article lacks information on training and for international readers perhaps an analogy as to where the New Zealand police as a national force compares in terms of structure, jurisdiction, equipment, intelligence, organisation etc. in relation to the FBI, Australian Fedral Police, Australian state police, English county police forces etc.
If anyone can help with this kind of information I think it would be a great improvement to the page. With a move to possibly making it an A-category article.
84.233.131.60 14:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving the overall look and feel of the article 

message: This discussion page is for discussing the Wikipedia article New Zealand Police, not for discussing the New Zealand Police.Nankai 07:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much chit chat 

message: The article on Project Topaz is currently two lines and a link. There are probably dozens of "projects" active at any time within the police force; this does not appear to warrant a separate article.-gadfium 07:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a notable topic? -- Alan Liefting-talk- 05:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An alternative is to AfD or prod the Project Topaz article. Given the lack of response to the merge proposal, I suspect no one cares much.-gadfium 08:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If an article is done for this one other similar Police projects should have articles if they are of equal note.  I will do an AfD. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 21:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Project Topaz merge proposal

message: :Image:Nz police logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Nz police logo.gif

message: There is no citation for this section. I assume the purpose for this is to give people unfamiliar with the NZ Police rank structure an idea of how it works, but I don't think that it works. I'll add a bit of information about how the rank structure works to the article, but I will struggle to provide citations, as the information comes from Police general instructions which aren't generally available to the public and my personal experience of being an officer in the NZ Police.
I'm new to Wikipedia so feel free to change what I've done, I'm still learning! However I feel very strongly that it is not accurate to compare Police ranks with military ranks, at least for the NZ Police.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.159.23 (talk) 08:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It comes straight from the horse's mouth. I'd like to keep it in because it shows the military origins and enduring similarity, and I do think it helps familiarise the reader with the hierarchy. XLerate (talk) 12:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparing Police ranks to military ranks 

message: I think there is info available on allocation of police time. For instance 18% is spent on alcohol related crimes. It would be good to find this info and add it to the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allocation of police time 

message: This article has been identified as containing an excessive quantity of non-free content. Per the Foundation's requirement to keep non-free media use minimal, and per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #3, the non-free images on this article have been removed. Please note: 
*The presence of a fair use rationale for this article on an image description page does not make it acceptable for a given use. 
*Blanket restoration of the non-free images that have been removed can and most likely will be reverted, with subsequent reporting action possible. 
*If some restoration is desired, careful consideration of exactly what non-free media to use must be made, paying special attention to WP:NFCC #1 and #8. In most cases non-free media needs to be tied directly to the prose of the article, most preferably with inline citations tying the discussion to secondary sources regarding the image per Wikipedia:Verifiability. 
If this is a list type article, please read the WP:NFLISTS guideline. If you wish to dispute this removal, it may be helpful to read WP:OVERUSE, as it answers a number of typical questions and responses to removals such as this. If after reading these, you still feel there is grounds for restoration of most or all of the media that have been removed, please post to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content.  ΔT The only constant 00:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of non-free images on this article 

message: I have inserted a POV template in several sections. I believe that the entire second half of the article is biased against police. It has been pointed out by another person on this talk page that is wrong that more than half the article is about contemporary or recent controversies. The NZ police, compared to other police services throughout the world, has few controversies. While I'm not saying they should be ignored, I am saying that the amount of material should be proportionate to the controversy when viewed objectively, and the volume and coverage should be consistent with articles about other police forces.
I realise that a summary of why I think there is a lack of neutrality is not enough and specific examples are needed. I will give those as points following on from this introduction.
My intention is to give everyone an opportunity to have their say - I understand that for some, the topic of "police" is one they are passionate about. --Kiwi in nz (talk) 10:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Template Talk 

message: The list of cars used by police adds little of any significance to this article. What say we remove the list? Offender9000 19:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the joys of Wikipedia is that it includes such things. Some readers will not be particularly interested in the organisational structure of the police or the various controversies, but will be fascinated by the vehicles once used. It's not a large proportion of the article.-gadfium 21:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transport - list of police cars 

message: Just noticed in section Civilian deaths involving police it says On top of deaths in custody, police have shot and killed seven people in the last ten years. One was an innocent bystander, another two were not carrying firearms but were carrying other weapons.[63] The police were exonerated in all seven cases. Reference 63 is dated 2011. 
Found an article last year that has more up to date till last year. Will have to get a more recent article.
* Police shootings number 29 in last 65 years.  RNZ. 3 August 2015. http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/280368/police-shootings-number-29-in-last-65-years.    
* Police have shot a person dead during a search warrant. Stuff. July 12 2016. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/81811587/police-cordon-off-hamilton-street-after-suspected-shooting
* Just including this article even though it is older: Chronology of fatal shootings by NZ police NZ Herald Oct 23, 2008. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10539110). 
I haven't updated the article as I would like to see if there's another article that confirms the dates and names or search individual articles to confirm the details. 
Linnah (talk) 12:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Shootings by NZ Police

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on New Zealand Police. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061211061951/http://www.policeact.govt.nz/ to http://www.policeact.govt.nz/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050718074414/http://www.police.govt.nz/operation/wharf/ to http://www.police.govt.nz/operation/wharf/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018)