Talk:Department of public safety

Which department?

Is this supposed to be a specific government agency, or just a typical government department that might go by the name 'Department of Public Safety', or other name? Peter Grey 06:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Both--209.213.220.227 19:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Canadian context

The Canadian and US situations probably don't belong in the same article. In Canada, Emergency Measures agencies do not deal with regular police/fire/ambualance emergency services, they deal with disaster reponse. And there isn't a single agency in Canada that uses the name 'Department of Public Safety'. Peter Grey 23:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Pittsburgh

I've removed Pittsburgh PA from the "List of cities with Departments of Public Safety with fully cross-trained personnel" list as their public safety department provides various types of support services to separate Police, Fire and EMS agencies.

See the Pittsburgh Public Safety website

Public Safety assists the Bureaus of Police, Fire, Emergency Medical Services, and Building Inspection in the delivery of their services by providing administrative, financial, and technical support for core management functions.

64.253.108.2 17:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have updated the list of local public safety agencies. As part of my graduate studies at the University of San Francisco, I conducted extensive research on consolidated agencies in the United States and discovered the cities I have added. I have also removed several agencies, such as Lindsay California, which are no longer using the public safety concept.

I also technically disagree with the statement that Bensenville had to give up its public safety department. The facts are clear; Bensenville was attempting to form a public safety agency, which brought about the Illinois law preventing the formation of any further public safety agencies in that state, but never was able to carry out the plan.

Finally, My research reveals that although pubic safety does not receive the attention it did in the 70s and 80s the concept continues to grow. From 1970 to the present, the number of public safety agencies in the United States has grown 270%, representing a yearly growth rate of 3.6%. Simply stated, the number of agencies is growing quietly and incrementally without anyone acutally noticing. 67.174.207.186 17:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're probably right that the number is slowly growing, but there are high-profile fiascos like Daytona Beach, which was probably the largest city to adopt and then get rid of a local DPS. --Coolcaesar 05:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I would be interested in more information on why Daytona Beach deconsolidated, so if you know of a source, please post the information. It is extremely difficult to consolidate large traditional departments. The labor unions, primarily fire unions, will not cooperate. Bensenville, Illinois was a prime example of typical fire union resistance. Even though Bensenville is a small town, the local and state chapters of the Illinois AFFI spearheaded the Illinois anti-public safety law.

Fire unions argue that public safety is diminished by consolidation; however, on a national basis, consolidated agencies have lower rates of fire loss, equal or better ISO ratings, and have lower rates in all Uniform Crime Report categories, with a fractional exception in total theft losses, in comparison to separate police and fire departments. Statistically speaking, cities that utilize the public safety concept are certainly as safe as cities that use a traditional approach and in most cases safer.OPRockwell 04:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Globalize

I've put a {{globalize}} template on the article because the article appears to be very badly US-centric. Even the title is US-centric; the article itself says the equivalent in other countries may be called interior ministry. The description of what a safety department does sounds to me to be pretty much what the British Home Office does. If interior ministries are indeed equivalent they should be included whatever the article title, it is just an alternative name for the same thing. On the other hand, if the intention is to limit the article to the US this should be made clear in the title like "US public safety department" or else disambiguate with a hatnote. SpinningSpark 16:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Just noticed this. Strongly disagree. Please review the article title policy and the disambiguation guideline. The article is describing a concept unique to the United States, a "department of public safety," a concept which is unique because of the unique nature of American law. As a result of the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, interior ministry functions are severely fragmented between federal, state, and local governments in the United States, resulting in what many textbooks call the most fragmented criminal justice system in the world. (Search for "fragmentation united states police" on Google Books to see what I mean.) This point is well-known in political science and political philosophy as it illustrates a fundamental distinction between unitary and federal states. The various permutations of the DPS either as a "umbrella" or "cross-training" concept arise from this issue. This article should not have been tagged or moved. --Coolcaesar (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, qualifying the name with "United States" in the title is ludicrous. That would be like qualifying the name "Silicon Valley" with "United States" or qualifying "David Cameron" with "United Kingdom." There is no need to disambiguate things that are already unique. --Coolcaesar (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, I need to point out that User:Neutrality erred badly in changing the title to its current one. Under Wikipedia:Article titles, we go with the most commonly recognizable title. That would be "department of public safety" (lower case), not "public safety department," which almost no one uses except small hospitals and towns. --Coolcaesar (talk) 14:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 29 June 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 14:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

---

Department of Public Safety → Department of public safety – Per WP:SENTENCECASE Epistulae ad Familiares (talk) 10:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)—Relisted. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Epistulae ad Familiares and SnowFire: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• All of the entries on this psuedo-disambig page are specific agencies with proper names that capitalize the term. To the extent that the lede talks about this as a generic sense of the phrase, that should be excised / shortened / moved to a separate section. SnowFire (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Used here as a generic term, not a proper name. This is not a disambiguation page. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support per User:Necrothesp. Primergrey (talk) 13:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The argument is colorable but the proposed execution is atrocious and I cannot support this proposal as it stands. This should be canceled and replaced with a broader requested move for all articles where the article title is clearly a generic term for a category of government ministries or departments (interior, transportation, education, veterans affairs, labor, health, social services, military, culture, etc.). Go compile a list of all those articles (there's probably 15 to 30 of them) and then propose a move of all their titles in one stroke. In that event, if there is a consensus that all such article titles should be lowercased because they are being described in a generic sense, then they should all be lowercased together at the same time. Otherwise we're looking at total chaos in the titles of such articles for the next five years. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.