Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law Enforcement/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Interpol

The article on Interpol doesn't have any information at all about its internal structure. (Do they have "agents" or "officers"? What's the ranking system? What are there various departments? What are the powers of its agents/officers, and of the organization as a whole? Etc.) Minaker (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Interpol is not a policing agency as such. Its office staff are not police officers through being members of Interpol (although they may be police officers in their own countries). It's just a co-ordinating body for law enforcement agencies around the world. It has no powers of its own. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, Necro, but my point is that this kind of thing should be made clear in the article. Minaker (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Archived

...the above, new fresh talk page for us all. Been a while since I have done any serious wiki-ing, but I have been checking most days. Hope everything is ticking over, and I haven't missed too much. Regards, SGGH ^ping! 19:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking for a second look

Tampering doesn't really reflect the legal version of the word, the closest thing we have as an article is sabotage. We have tamper evident and tamper resistance but not the crime itself. I'm a little close to this topic and I'm going to take a stab at tampering (crime), but I'd appreciate a second look since I'm only loosely familiar with the process. To make a long story short, FDA has a special branch that deals with criminal law and I'm not part of it. SDY (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Tamper evident does touch on tampering as described in your article tampering (crime) and there is an article specifically about the Tylenol tampering incidents, so it might be a bit redundant as it stands. I didn't look to see if there is an article that discusses other types of criminal tampering such as with juries or evidence, so the article may have legs if expanded to include them. JeffJ (talk) 05:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

There may be some of those articles that could really be moved to the article about the thing they're trying to avoid, or the three could be merged into one longer article. SDY (talk) 07:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done SGGH ^ping! 11:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Stuff for new people to do

Quite a few new people are joining the project, and there's not much immediately evident for them to do. Maybe we could agree on some useful tasks, such as:

• implement the infobox {{Infobox Law enforcement agency}} (and replace old infoboxes)

  and research extra data to put in the infoboxes - official web sites and annual reports are a good place Peet Ern (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

  and remove redundant manual categorisations Peet Ern (talk) 10:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• keep the categories:
  • Category:Law enforcement agency articles with no operations jurisdiction link
  • Category:Law enforcement agency articles with no available geographic category

clear Peet Ern (talk) 14:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• read up on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (law enforcement agency categories) and then patrol the LEA categories to check for miscategorisation, either by human-error or incorrect infobox parameters.
• create any of the wanted pages

Maybe the above could go in the bulletin board? ninety:one 23:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Good idea Peet Ern (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should have a general list of things to do page, not just for new comers . . . Peet Ern (talk) 14:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:20, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

"Fallen Officers" sections

Do we really have to have these sections? US LEA articles are having large tables added to them listing all the fallen officers. The information has simply been reprocessed from a dedicated site (http://www.odmp.org/), and is simply raw data without any extra information. They're not particularly encyclopedic, all the information is available elsewhere. ninety:one 19:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

There was this Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law Enforcement/Archive 9#Appropriateness of "fallen officer" sections discussion, but I do not think it actually resolved anything . . . Peet Ern (talk) 00:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

There is likely to be some understandable emotive argument, given the nature of the subject.

I guess we have to go back to basic principles, perhaps along the lines of:

• wikipeda is an encylcopedia, not a memorial
• was the person notable
• was the event notable
• does the individual fatality add specific knowledge to the article about the agency

so, for example, a table of the types, causes, and historic trend of fatalities would add value to the article, but perhaps not a list of the individuals . . . The table can always be referenced to an offsite list of the individuals.

Food for thought Peet Ern (talk) 00:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion

Perhaps to encourage the "correct" thing we could have a templated approach along the lines of:

{{law enforcement agency member fatalities
|periodname = Decade
|period9 = 2009-09
|period9a = 1
|period9v = 2
|period9o = 1
|period8 = 1990-99
|period8v = 1
|period8s = 3
|period7 = 1980-89
|period7a = 1
|period7s = 1
}}

Duty Related Fatalities
Decade	Assault	Vehicular	Search/Rescue	Other	Total
2000-09	1	2		1	4
1990-99		1	3		4
1980-89	1		1		2

Peet Ern (talk) 00:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge of hard and soft drugs into Drug policy

Join in the fun at Talk:Drug_policy#Merger_proposal - 'hard' and 'soft' are merely two adjectives whose whole being lies within the concept of drug policy, and it should all be on the one page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

"Police Crisis in Norway"

Hi, I added this section about police rebellion in Norway recently at Norwegian Police Service, but it was deleted:

Police crisis in Norway

Over 4 000 uniformed members of the Norwegian Police Service paraded the main streets of Oslo in a protest march, 25th March 2009. The police appealed outside the Norwegian Parliament, and demanded the acting Norwegian Ministry of Justice and the Police, Trond Giske to come out and comment upon the police charges of a current police crisis in Norway. Knut Storberget has been at a sick leave for some weeks, but is expected to attend to his desk at Monday 30th March 2009, and the police force labor union, Politiets Fellesforbund, expects him to meet for a dialog with the police. The leader of Politiets Fellesforbund, Arne Johannessen have declared that the police force will not surrender in these matters. He stated that Norway are under dictatorship, and that the rebellion will continue.

I was guided at Talk:Norwegian Police Service to ask WikiProject Law Enforcement for advice about how I can present the event, and some of you might maybe have some idea about where to place it and such? I really think such an event should be added someplace. Daimonion (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be worth adding, but it would help if you sourced it well. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Even if the referances is in Norwegian? Daimonion (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

A quick Google search turned up this source in English. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Plenty more too if you google either "Norwegian Police Strike" or "crisis". Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank!. I added some references, but it was cut out again, I don´t know why. I would be very happy if anyone can give me a hint about how I can write about controversial events in the Wikipedia style... Daimonion (talk) 07:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I personally think the removal is a bit unwarranted, and have re-added it, with the parts most easily construed as POV removed. SGGH ^ping! 21:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The so-called "crisis" is a working conflict started by Politiets Fellesforbund, the norwegian policemen's union; it is POV in their interest to present it as an unpersonal crisis created by external, uncontrolled forces. --Orland (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you not just remove the use of "crisis" if you are that worried? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

What is POV? I will try to re-write the section, but have to admit I´m really confused by all the different answers and editing. "Police crisis" is the police-term of this situation, and the government refuse it´s a crisis. I think that makes the Norwegian government the only government that wouldn´t be alarmed when the police force promise 4000 uniformed policemen in demonstration promises that this is only the start...I think the term "crisis" is valid, since the police use it as a common term. Two parts doesn´t necessary have to agree in use of terms to anyway explain the content of the term... Daimonion (talk) 07:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't have clue what you're talking about, just came across this on my RC patrol, and thought I'd say POV stands for Point of View. Cheers - Kingpin13 (talk) 08:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, RC patrol wasn´t either a familiar term, but this time I looked it up myself. Can you please give me some advice about how I can write the text in a more objective way..? I`m starting to be somewhat tired of this - it cannot really be SO difficult to put out some information about current events of such importance, like it or not?? Daimonion (talk) 10:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Its a shame your work keeps being deleted, because in my opinion I do not think it should have been - something as major as the strike or crisis is important. But do not let this stop you in the future, continue trying to write your section based on the comments recieved on the talk page and remain positive. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 15:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for support. I´m trying to learn how I can upload pictures properly, since the first really terrifying picture from this event was released today (the previous news photos have been totally understating this event): http://www.dagbladet.no/2009/04/02/nyheter/innenriks/oslo/politiaksjon/arne_johannessen/5579262/ - "Reminding of a Coup d´etat". Daimonion (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

File:PoliceDemonstrationNorway.jpg

File:PoliceNorwayDemonstrationParliament960x.jpg

I added these two photos at Talk:Norwegian_Police_Service#Police_crisis_in_Norway, and would really like to find a way to put one of them out in an article about the subject - if I can have any kind of approval, so it´s not deleted instantsly... Daimonion (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice pictures, good work. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"no operations jurisdiction link"

Hi, Can anyone help? I'm working my way through Wikipedia:WikiProject Somerset/Cleanup listing and find that Avon and Somerset Constabulary is in the Category:Law enforcement agency articles with no operations jurisdiction link. I've look at your wikiproject & the template documentation & can't find out exactly what this means - or how to resolve it. I know it covers the areas of the local authorities Bristol, BANES, South Somerset, Taunton Deane, West Somerset, Sedgemoor, Mendip, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire but can't find where to put this to stop the cleanup tag appearing - any help appreciated.— Rod ^talk 12:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It means that Avon and Somerset isn't an article, whereas Gloucestershire Constabulary can be linked automatically to Gloucestershire by cutting off Constabulary... I think. SGGH ^ping! 13:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm writing a new table for police areas (here), I should think we can create and redirect all the police areas to their respective entries when it's done. ninety:one 21:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responses - I suppose my question now is why does the template require this to be a separate article - why not just include the areas covered in the article about the individual force?— Rod ^talk 07:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it might be to do with the template automatically providing a link to (in this case) Somerset. I suppose it's just a neat time saving trick in the template, but in this case it doesn't work. But then again I might have been wrong in my first reply, it's not very clear. SGGH ^ping! 10:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I created Avon & Somerset and it put a blue link in the infobox (which would redirect to the force page anyway) but that didn't take it out of the category... SGGH ^ping! 10:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Categories can take several days to correct themselves. ninety:one 21:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry folks - I have been out of action for several days. Yes the infobox template does try to link as intelligently as it can and if it cannot it cats the article for a human to look at later . . . I will try to have a closer look within the next day or so at this particular one . . . If the police area is only defined in the article and no where else, the you should be able to "tidy everything up nicely" if want to by using |subdivdab= (or |divdab=) articlename#section defining police area. There is this doco Template:Infobox Law enforcement agency/doc#Automatic disambiguation, but it is not very good or correctly placed - so I will fix it. Peet Ern (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all for discussion & help on this. Avon and Somerset Constabulary has gone from the category so my specific issue seems to be resolved but I would agree that simpler guidance in the documentation on this would be helpful.— Rod ^talk 07:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for help

I'm currently undertaking a major re-writing of Mersey Tunnels Police, having done Port of Liverpool Police and found it easy enough but I'm struggling to find decent sources. I could really do with assistance from somebody with a knowledge of the subject! HJ Mitchell (talk) 02:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• There's very little on the web. I found this current article about jobs cuts (http://www.wirralnews.co.uk/wirral-news/local-wirral-news/2009/04/03/merseytravel-considers-future-of-ferry-across-the-mersey-and-job-cuts-to-trim-costs-92534-23301320/) which may be worth including. Other than that, I couldn't see much else. Dalliance (talk) 12:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation for US LEAs

I could swear I have already brought this up, but hey. At the moment, the vast majority of US LEA articles that need disambiguation (and a good number that have been disambiged anyway) are done by:

• PLACENAME, STATE Police Department.

However, a major contributor to the Maryland PD articles recently moved them all to

• PLACENAME Police Department (STATE)

and the Sheriff's Office articles were then moved as well. Can we agree to have all US LEAs at one version or the other?

I personally think the second version is favourable, because:

1. It is standard practice for disambiguation,
2. It makes it easier to distinguish between identically named departments, and
3. It makes it easier to tell what the actual legal name of the LEA is.

Thoughts? ninety:one 17:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally I also agree that Rollinsford Police Department, New Hampshire is preferable to Rollinsford, New Hampshire Police Department. SGGH ^ping! 10:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

We need to take into account Wikipedia:Naming conventions (government departments and ministers). Under that, disambiguation would be in the form of "Rollinsford Police Department (New Hampshire)", rather than "Rollinsford Police Department, New Hampshire". Is that OK? ninety:one 17:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Any further comment on this? ninety:one 20:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Your views sound good to me. SGGH ^ping! 09:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

 Moved all the incorrectly disambiged municipal police departments and Sheriff's departments. I'll do pre-disambiguation as and when needed. ninety:one 14:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done Every state list done (except List of law enforcement agencies in Texas) and as far as I know, every LEA that was disambiged in the old way is now done in the new way, so the vast majority of US LEAs have now been disambiged. ninety:one 21:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• I should note this doesn't appear to be a consensus. This should not be relied on solely to "prove" a consensus has formed, and in any event, since this section is being used as such, should stay open permanently to make sure it reflects the current view of the community. I would generally agree with the three users that have posted comments (hardly a consensus in itself), I am finding users are using this section as evidence of their right to disambiguate pages that need no disambiguation. While that's not disruptive, imagine all the law enforcement articles having the state added to them. (Like adding the word Georgia to an article's title.) And as far as I can tell, certain users all by themselves are well on their way to doing so. Int21h (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If I could take this opportunity to explain. I raised this issue because the previous method of disambiguation was PLACENAME, STATE Police Department. This needed to be changed, because it was totally confusing. PLACENAME Police Department (STATE) is the agreed form. Now, if we check with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (government departments and ministers) it quite clearly states that "The standard practice shall be to pre-disambiguate in the format Articlename articlename (Jurisdictionname)". All that has happened is that 1) the style of disambiguation has changed, and 2) the naming convention, and subsequent disambiguation, has been enforced. ninety:one 20:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, all those moves were done by one user, User:SGT141. (Which I agree was confusing, so I reverted a few of the moves starting in April 2008 and requested a discussion on the matter in several of the talk pages. Which was not seen or ignored.)

The convention also states pre-disambiguation shall not be carried out "in the event of the jurisdiction name being a natural part of the subject's name". Which for Sacramento County Sheriff's Department would be Sacramento County. Which is in the name. That pretty much sums up my argument. I should also note if your (directly) above argument prevails, "Sacramento County, California" would indeed be the correct jurisdiction and disambiguated title, hence, defeating your own argument against such a naming scheme. Int21h (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Well it all depends upon how you interpret 'jurisdiction'. We could be really anal about it, and append "(United States)" to everything, because that is what the guideline says and the examples it gives would support that. We're just trying to take the sensible approach. Like I have said, I don't see any reason why, in individual cases, exceptions can't be made. That would, of course, be discussed on an article-by-article basis.

With regards consensus, I feel we took all reasonable steps to get consensus. ninety:one 21:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

✗ Consensus disputed Again, I strenuously disagree that 4:1 over 2 weeks is consensus for thousands of articles with thousands of editors. Please see Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction) for an example of what the consensus on consensus is. (Notice that there are thousands of comments in support, yet there is no consensus.) Consensus isn't "gotten"; this discussion is just one step in "building" consensus. The problem with this supposed consensus is that even if hundreds of new editors were to start moving or editing pages another way, a few (of the old-timers) would revert lots of them and use this discussion as evidence of an established consensus, even though the new edits would be a de-facto (and de-jure) new consensus compared to the few who responded here. I say this needs more time and more eyes to reach a consensus stage. Int21h (talk) 21:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• I don't like the change and I think that ninety was premature in changing a lot of them. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The police department titles should only be disambiguated when necessary. Houston Police Department needs to stay there, as Houston is the title for the corresponding city. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Modus operandi

Fairly important article, I would think (though its importance to the project has not been assessed), but it is just an unreferenced stub at the moment. Could use some attention! Шизомби (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Done some things with it. SGGH ^ping! 18:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

A respectable stub now, appreciated! Шизомби (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The Logo

Whats with the Logo guys? Why a logo with a drawn gun? What makes it okay to intimate or have people subconciously reinforcing a belief that most all practice of law somehow has to be done with a drawn gun? Isn't that kind of perverted? I think so. Are there really no other way of symbolising proper law enforcement? I thought law enforcement was to prevent the escalation of violence and fear in a community.. but perhaps I'm just being stupid? Nunamiut (talk) 04:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Law enforcement has a cultural perception as well which is an equally valid topic under the scope of this project. We are not a law enforcement organisation, we write about them. And I suspect many people percieve law enforcers with a weapon (much like whomever drew the original image). However I personaly do not believe that what you are referring to would be perceived in the logo by the general community - but that's just my opinion. SGGH ^ping! 07:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

As the person who made the logo, my opinion is that it's too corny to take that seriously, whatever the interpretation. FYI, the image is from an ad for Ford V-6 cars I found in a 1930s police journal. I wouldn't be offended if the logo changed. Wanna give it a shot, Nunamiut? Something not specifically American might be a good idea as well, though I'm sure most readers are familiar with American police symbolism. bobanny (talk) 02:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Not that it really matters to me either way, but I am an LEO and I don't mind the logo; but I wouldn't be opposed to it being updated either (as long as it isn't cartoony or a still shot of the Rodney King beating!). Cheers to all!--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 17:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

How about this? The French WP uses it for LE-related stuff, so it's not strictly British. It's used as a symbol for 'police' in Italy as well. ninety:one 14:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"But it excludes Americans" will be the response I imagine SGGH ^ping! 18:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Well they've been excluding the rest of the world ever since we used a US-centric logo from the start :P. What does it matter, it's as instantly recognisable as anything else? ninety:one 20:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That is very true. Let us open it to a vote:

• Actually not so true. That style of hat is used on some uniforms in US, Canada, Australia (all of whom carry guns) and some uniforms in the UK. However there isn't a single dept. in the US, Canada or Australia that uses the style of hat in this proposed logo. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Votes

New logo or current logo

• New logo for me SGGH ^ping! 11:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• New logo for me as well ninety:one 15:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• New logo for me three Millis (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• Current logo for me. It at least identifies the project. This one is just a hat, which I don't like anyway. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

We could work the title into the logo of the new one. And don't forget the logo would never appear outside of a box or note containing the project title. SGGH ^ping! 11:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh of course, the name would be included somewhere. ninety:one 16:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Then wouldn't showing the final product be a wise move? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the words are needed as they will be elsewhere on whichever box is required, personally. SGGH ^ping! 18:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• My vote is the same. I hate to sound ethnocentric (or whatever I may be called), but is that style of hat used in any English speaking country aside from parts of the UK (since we are talking abou the English version here)? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
• New logo I don't care much for the above helmet idea but would like to see something neutral in respect of nationality. I don't much care for the firearm either - it doesn't reflect policing in the UK. --Gaspode the Wonder Dog (talk) 07:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• True, it doesn't reflect policing in the UK....any more than that helmet reflects policing in the US. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Some ideas off the top of my head which are more neutral - Blue light, Emergency vehicle lights, Handcuffs?--Gaspode the Wonder Dog (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• I like the handcuffs idea. It's universal and eliminates the differences between hats, gun/no gun, differences in light types. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• New Logo The new logo looks really nice, and I think that having handcuffs as a potential logo even to replace the new one would be a good idea. All the Best, Mifter (talk) 00:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - cuffs are probably the only internationally acceptable logo (but law enforcement is not all about arresting people!) I can only find two suitable & free images: File:Arrest.svg and File:Handcuffs.svg. Either of these look good - with editing perhaps?
• Comment - I like the idea of the handcuffs. It's very universal. Justin Herbert (talk) 05:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law Enforcement/logo discussion and start a brand new discussion there. SGGH ^ping! 16:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

PRODs

a bunch of law enforcement articles were recently sent for deletion via WP:PROD

76.66.196.85 (talk) 06:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Ali Said

Anyone want to jump in and save this one? Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Chief of police of a city like Mogadishu is non-notable IMO. ninety:one 19:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Please contribute to Murder of Huang Na's peer review

Greetings, members of this WikiProject! Six years ago, an eight-year-old Mainland Chinese girl, named Huang Na, came to Singapore with her mother, a peidu mama. She had a bright future ahead of her, until she disappeared one day, sparking a nationwide search that lasted three weeks. Turns out that she was brutally murdered by a family friend.

Now I humbly present an article about the murder case: Murder of Huang Na! The story is tragic yet fascinating - I believe you will enjoy reading it and learn more about Singaporean culture too. But besides reading it, could you please contribute to its ongoing peer review, so I can improve it into this WikiProject's next GA? Thanks. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 July 6#Category:Multinational law enforcement agencies

Per the above Cfd discussion, it was decided that Category:Multinational law enforcement agencies should be merged into Category:International law enforcement agencies. Template:Infobox law enforcement agency currently adds the multinational category to all articles for which the 'multinational' flag is activated (currently just Interpol). I've taken a look at the template, hoping to change the categorisation, but I'm having a little difficulty in navigating around the code. If someone more familiar that I am could take a look and help sort this out then I would be very grateful. Thanks.

Xdamr^talk 09:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

LEA article: When?

Following suite with several other law enforcement agency articles I created a page for my local police department, Port Townsend Police Department (Washington). It has since been replaced with a redirect to Port Townsend, Washington (the Wikipedia article for the municipality). The note explaining why the user deleted the page and put in a redirect was "redirected as wikipedia is not a directory; this must show notability apart from its function within the municipality." This doesn't make since to me as it seem therefore a majority of the LEA articles would therefore be deleted. I don't want to turn this into a flame war as I am admittedly not the best informed at current Wikipedia policies and procedures. Could someone with a better handle on the situation let me know if the article is or is not appropriate? Thanks. — ColdCaffeine – t·b — 07:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Small- and medium-sized city agencies

When I see articles about agencies from small- and medium-sized cities that don't provide a good claim to notibility, I will likely WP:BOLDly redirect to the article for the city. The same goes for agencies that are part of or strongly associated with another organization such as a university.

This of course doesn't apply to departments which are notable for something other than their mere existance: If the article has a credible claim to notability, or if I can improve the article to add such a claim. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Forward Intelligence Team

Hi, I'm trying to get this up to GA status. If any of you could help I would appreciate it. They're quite a controversial police unit so achieving WP:NPOV is proving a little difficult. It's already been reviewed and the comments are here. Thanks Smartse (talk) 04:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries, it's passed now.... Smartse (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I had a bit of a tinker. I was curious as to what constitutes a FIT and what is just an officer with a video camera to evidence ASB. --SGGH ^ping! 22:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed redirect from Anthony Police Department (Texas) to Anthony, Texas

There is an active proposal to redirect Anthony Police Department (Texas) to Anthony, Texas. Your input is appreciated. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I've dropped a comment. To be honest, I'm a bit on the fence on this subject. SGGH ^ping! 10:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I would like to see at least half a dozen people give their input, so we can get some kind of consensus one way or the other without resorting to a formal wiki-process. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Manchester City Police

Looking for editors to help write up an article on the (historical) Manchester City Police (not to be confused with the modern Greater Manchester Police). For clarity, this unit was merged with the Salford City Police in the 1960s to create the Manchester and Salford Police. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

New article looks for ce

Hi there, I try to create the article Hamburg Police. Currently it's in my sandbox, because the sections History#After the Second World War and Headquarters need expanding. I often write in crude German structure, so can somebody read it and look for mistakes in spelling and grammar (and maybe correct errors?), please. If you have suggestions for more content or better structure, please offer them. I think during the next week, I'll be able to move it into wiki. I'm not firm with LE articles and have only a servere coi related to Hamburg. Cheers Sebastian scha. (talk) 21:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC) (PS: I'll watch here.)

Gefängnis Zürich

The Gefängnis Zürich article has been listed at AfD. Mjroots (talk) 09:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Popular pages

I have requested a list for this project at [1]. --Ysangkok (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Open-licenced images

The (English) West Midlands Police Flickr stream now uses CC-BY-SA licensing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

List of British police officers killed in the line of duty

I've raised some concerns on the talk page. The criteria of inclusion as defined in the lead does not cover maybe a dozen or so entries. Either the lead or the entries ought to be tweaked. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Cover me (urban legend)

Despite the loose (and unsourced) point of this to the Rodney King riots, this looks like a total urban legend, however possibly someone on this project (a) knows better, (b) can confirm from police sources that this is a fiction. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it is fictional/un-encyclopaedic so have opened a AfD. Either consensus will find it so, or will solidify its position and invite expansion and a final ruling on its notability. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The whole point of articles in the category:urban legends is that they are fictional and exist only as notable popular culture (which is why the article has a popular culture tag and an urban legend category). I assumed two sensible printed sources (2007, 2010) describing this as a "urban legend" were correct. Closer investigation shows that there is a claimed historical basis in the account of James D. Delk of the 1992 Los Angeles riots, and that even though later sources assume it is "part fact, part urban legend" it now appears to be more fact. This doesn't affect notability as an article in the use as an English example category.. but does leave it in a very odd position, of a documented "urban legend" that isn't a legend. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Airwave (communications network)

There appears to be a bit of a slow-motion POV battle going on over the performance of the Airwave (communications network) during the London riots this summer. I don't know enough to say what is right and what is wrong, but members of this project may be able to help. Thryduulf (talk) 11:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I have trimmed it heavily. Half the content was supported by the citations. Please let us know if you spot it resuming. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Notability of a small town cop in multiple crime stories

There is an AFD deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Hart. The discussion has wider implications. The more general quetion is if a small town cop who is so notable as to be the investigator in about 70 news stories on at least 15 topics is not considered notable, then how can information on such investigators be available to readers who might be interested in the information? A pre-trial crime story has three main human subjects, the criminal, the victim, and the investigator (who would be called "the protagonist" of the story if it were a movie). These correspond to the three main actions reported on, the elements of the crime, the effects on the victim, and the investigation. Any criminal or victim in 70 news stories on 15 different topics would surely be WP:notable. Why should articles about the protagonist of the news story, the small town investigator, be treated at some impossibly higher standard? I propose that if the Sean Hart article is deleted for WP:NN, then the notability guideline be fixed so it does not happen again to the next notable small town cop. PPdd (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I've made a comment on the Afd. I don't feel that the notability guidelines need re-writing. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Detectives are not likely to be notable unless:

• They held a reasonably high rank. Except in very exceptional circumstances, I would suggest that nobody of the rank of captain/chief inspector or below would be considered notable and even more senior officers would have to have a damn good reason to be notable. And;
• They operated at a national level or in a very major sub-national jurisdiction (such as London or New York). And;
• They were the lead investigator in major cases of national importance. And;
• Their work was substantially covered in the national media.

-- Necrothesp (talk) 23:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:Financial regulation

{{Financial regulation}} has been nominated for deletion as being unused. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 10:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)