Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Pee Tern (talk | contribs)
4,541 edits
Third opinion
Line 196: Line 196:


[[User:Pee Tern|Pee Tern]] ([[User talk:Pee Tern|talk]]) 03:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
[[User:Pee Tern|Pee Tern]] ([[User talk:Pee Tern|talk]]) 03:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

==Third opinions sought at [[Certis CISCO]]==
Dear fellow WikiProject Law Enforcement members, I am currently involved in a content dispute over at [[Talk:Certis CISCO]] over a seemingly "inappriopriate" list of incidents by users who do not seem to be otherwise particularly concerned or interested in Law Enforcement matters. Would appreciate anyone who may offer their opinions there. Thanks!--[[User:Huaiwei|Huaiwei]] ([[User talk:Huaiwei|talk]]) 17:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:36, 15 February 2008

WikiProject iconLaw Enforcement Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Shortcut

.

UK Police force pages

I think that the badge should be their main image, rather than a picture of the area it serves.

Calvin 11:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the thinking behind it is that the first image you see should provide the key information. And for UK police forces that have similar badges, the location is more critical as initial information. SGGH speak! 21:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

request for expansion

Unsure where to put this, but have a look at Sandford (Police Training Village), even the concept is fascinating! Chris 18:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks similar to Hogan's Alley (FBI), but maybe not so rough-and-tumble. Note the external link is now dead. bobanny 19:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to have it expanded, try the sleepy collaboration section :P SGGH speak! 21:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Security guard

Please see and contribute to the discussion on the above page re: inclusion of security guards in this project. SGGH speak! 15:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SGGH

As of September 7 your current lead coordinator was attested as a police officers with Avon and Somerset Constabulary and given his warrant card. :) SGGH speak! 21:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally if we need images of british law enforcement (minus PPE) I can take some photos. Let me know SGGH speak! 10:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Patrol Boat Program

I don't think this article fits within the scope of the project. It seems more like a military organization to me but it seemed questinable, so before removing the WPLE tag I thought I'd see what everyone thought.EMT1871 12:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky one. It looks to essentially be a coast guard-related topic. Glancing at some of the articles in the list of coast guards around the world in the coast guard article, some are tagged LE and some not. There's also considerable debate on talk:coast guard about whether they are search and rescue, military, police, etc. I'd say they could all be included in the LE scope, along with border patrols generally, since there's a clear law enforcement function there. My impression is that even when these operations look to be more military than anything, protecting national security and sovereignty, they're more geared to enforcing international law than protecting from invaders, i.e., illegal fishing by foreign vessels and the like. bobanny 16:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it enforces the law then in remains in this project. =) Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 10:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we go by that rule ,than Military Police enforce laws and they should be in the project, yet they are specifically excluded.EMT1871 12:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, sorry. Ill be more specific... If it enforces civilian law, then it remains in this project. lol =D Regards Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 15:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not necessarily true either, a Parking attendant enforces civilian law, but is not included in the project (rightfuly so I might add). Anyway, I don't think the Pacific Patrol Boat Program belongs in the project, it seems much more miltary to me. --EMT1871 19:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I always saw it as Police, Ambulance, Fire and Coast Guard. They are a seperate emergency service aren't they? SGGH speak! 00:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My gut feeling is that the military project is even less like to want them then us. I can certainly see why they wouldn't be included in this project, despite my comment above. It's a judgment call, and I'll defer to others on this. My main concern is that we be consistent, and that if we don't include this, we unload other coast guardish articles as well. bobanny 03:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that other coast guard-like organizations should be excluded because, at least to me, a coast guard is a military organization. I'll wait one more day to see if anyone else has any comments on this then I'll remove the WP:LE tag if we are in the same place. I have to say I'm not used to creating this much discussion on something, usually I keep my thoughts pretty non-controversial. EMT1871 11:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death threat AfD

This stub is currently up for deletion. I feel it has plenty of room for expansion as noted on the talk page. I'd really be interested in adding legal definitions for the term, and how various police jurisdictions handle them. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Death_threat --George100 12:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My tuppence worth Talk:Death threat#Notable subject - perhaps - but in what context? Pee Tern (talk) 03:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, the article's citation by NBC, I am not clear, was this a reporter or a blogger? Pee Tern (talk) 03:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monaco Police

I'd be grateful if someone from this project could see my question "Police Numbers" on the talk page of Law enforcement in Monaco. I have raised this because it has been strongly suggested to me that the page is in error, but I do not have any specialist knowledge in this area - hopefully one of you might! Many thanks. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 16:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed it on the talk page. bobanny 22:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back on this project!

I'm back on this project... after being on the road for a bit, I haven't been able to edit Wikipedia as often as I'd like... it's good to be back! --Solumeiras talk 10:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back =D Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 17:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox UK Police and Lincolnshire Police article

Can someone sort this out, the budget part of the infobox is messing up articles, e.g. Lincolnshire Police - an article I'm working on at the moment.

Also, if anyone wants to help me get Lincolnshire Police to a WP:GA or WP:FA standards, that would be much appreciated.

Thanks, --Solumeiras talk 10:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the budget amount to the Lincolnshire Police article infobox. bobanny 16:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great image of the shield. SGGH speak! 20:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of List articles

Page(s) related to this project have been created and/or added to one of the Wikipedia:Contents subpages (not by me).

This note is to let you know, so that experts in the field can expand them and check them for accuracy, and so that they can be added to any watchlists/tasklists, and have any appropriate project banners added, etc. Thanks. --Quiddity 20:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plate numbers and unmarked/POV in images?

Do we have any guidelines on Wikipedia or within project about whether licence plate numbers can appear in images? This recently uploaded image [[1]] is of an unmarked (or personally-owned) police car in Slovakia. It's a beautiful shot but the plate number is clearly visible and I don't know if that's cool or not. Do we have any precedent about whether plate numbers need to be airbrushed out in this situation? This has to have come up before at WP:LE. Also asked at WP:VPP [[2]] Squidfryerchef 22:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the problem. It's an unmarked police car, but it's not an undercover operative pretending to be a civilian. It's not like we're blowing his cover, so I don't see the difference between this and identifiers of anyone out in the public view. bobanny 02:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think we should be showing anyones license plate numbers. license plate numbers can lead to anyone getting the persons home address and other personal info. This could possibly compromise someones safety, especially a police officer. This may not be a problem in other parts of hte world, but int he U.S. this is definately a concern.EMT1871 12:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the Department of Motor Vehicles gives out that information to just anyone. Besides, if it is possible to get personal info just from a licence number, how is getting the number from Wikipedia different from writing down the number from a car I see on the street? It's publicly displayed information, so I don't see how it could be interpreted as a privacy issue. bobanny 20:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many police departments rotate their undercover plates with marked vehicle plates and create new registers. My own opinion is that we should blur out the plate. There's no reason to show it. I would also be inclined to obscure any licence plate if permission is not obtained to display it. Probably just professional paranoia. --Jeff Johnston 20:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Information can be obtained from alot of DMV's for a fee. and whether you can write down plate numbers yourself or not wikipedia should not be diplaying the plate numbers of known police officers or police vehicles you ARE compromising the safety of those officers.EMT1871 03:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how. If government agencies are handing out home addresses of police officers, the security problem is with the government, not Wikipedia. Again, this information (licence #) is publicly displayed everytime that car is on public streets. bobanny 03:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something is publicly displayed doesn't mean it should be advertised here. If you take a picture of a license plate and advertise who it belongs to you are viiolating their privacy. if you take a picture of a police car(unmarked) and advertise it's license plate, or a police officers car and advertise it's plate, you are endangering people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EMT1871 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The red light and police uniform are what's advertising that this vehicle belongs to the police, not the licence number or its appearance on Wikipedia. How does this photo endanger people? If anyone can drop 10 bucks at the DMV and get a name and home address from a licence plate #, it's not photos like this that police officers, or anyone concerned about their privacy and safety, should be worried about. There's no name, home address, or other personal info contained in this photo, period. bobanny 14:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done. I know if it was my car or my unmarked police car's license plate blatantly placed on wikipedia for everyone to see advertised as a police vehicle or as belonging to a police officer I would be very upset. regardless of what you believe advertising license plates as belonging to anyone is wrong. release of information contained in DMV records, although accessable, is regualted and no information regarding ownership of vehicles should be made available here. the issue is not solely with this picture, it is with the greater issue of if this should be done in the future and I believe that putting peoples license plates on here is unethical. Releasing plate #'s of vehicles someone on here knows to be police vehicles potentially compromises safety and police investigationsEMT1871 16:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What information showing vehicle ownership? I would assume that cars driven by uniformed officers in the performance of their duties are owned by the police dept., with the possible exception of undercover assignments, which this obviously isn't. Asserting that visible licence numbers somehow undermine personal safety or police investigations doesn't make it so. If it was a plainclothes officer in an unmarked car, that would be different. The ethical issue goes both ways: secrecy that isn't justified by personal safety issues or the specific requirements of an assignment/investigation calls police accountability into question. bobanny 22:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been blanking info from police images I uploaded, though in my case it is mostly collar numbers. SGGH speak! 22:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can expect everyone uploading pictures to blank the numbers. But if we can do that or photoshop them, to protect the information, I think we should. Instead of blanking the numbers, I photoshopped different numbers on the image: Image:Unmarked policecar slovakia passat b5 2b.jpg. Maybe that would also work? --Aude (talk) 23:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


How about someone takes a picute of your car and license palte and posts it on here? How about if we post your name and address?? No one is talking police secrecy or anyother paranoid crap. Posting license plates is wrong whether it belongs to the police or you or anyone. If you don't think so, fine. If you don't think posting license plates of unmarked police cars is wrong or don't see how thiings like that could jeopordize an officers safety, then you obviously don't work in or know much of law enforcement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EMT1871 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to agree to disagree, but at the end of the day it's up to the individual uploader. I don't see the justification for it, and in my opinion, it detracts from the image, just as blurring out the face of police officers detracts from those images and serves no obvious purpose. Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but if so, I evidently haven't been enlightened by anything here either. I don't believe for a second that the DMV or equivalent agencies outside the US hand out names and addresses, especially those of police, to anyone who can provide a licence plate number, which your position seems to rest on. The internet is full of photos of cars showing licence numbers; that's hardly the same as posting names, addresses, and social security numbers. Unmarked cars where I live are easily identifiable because they are late-model Crown Victorias with black disc-shaped things on the roof, and as often as not are driven by uniformed officers. If there was an actual safety issue, it's unfathomable to me why measures aren't taken to make them more discreet. I assume it's because they are discreet enough since the reason they are unmarked isn't to hide the fact that they are police cars. As for paranoia, I can name specific incidents of police removing ID numbers before engaging in things they shouldn't and which they wouldn't want to be reported for. If you can come up with at least one anecdote of an officer being targeted by someone who used a licence plate number to find personal information or of a police operation being compromised, I'd love to hear it. bobanny 06:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well there is a version of the image in question with made up plates now, let's just use that and that at least ends that part of the debate. It would be quite interesting to expand this debate. I'm going to put something up on the UK police forums to see what they think (here is the thread) there's a pool of coppers there who will (hopefully) help debate it. As I said, I would prefer it if all collar numbers were blurred off, because those you can actually use and can get an officer in trouble with. Licence plate numbers I don't know, and faces I would say only at the behest of the officer in the photograph, or someone who can reasonably place such a request. SGGH speak! 10:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Join the CID" ... good one. In this particular case, I have no problem with Aude's modified version, since the difference is imperceptible. Nor am I suggesting that anyone here is trying to conceal anything nefarious. My concern is more about a general policy of self-censorship. How about something like this? It's a candid shot I took from a distance that shows the police in action, which I think makes it encyclopedic, despite the blur. I don't think it would have been prudent for me to have asked for permission to use it while they were busy arresting someone, and distorting the cop's face would not only ruin the photo, but also might imply he was doing something sketchy. Anyway, some interesting comments on that forum - thanks for that, SGGH. bobanny 20:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why create a fake plate number? I can see reasons for blurring or keeping the image, but creating a picture with a fake number could cause new problems. For instance, you might have added a digit which identifies the vehicle as a farm tractor or something, and this could confuse someome using Commons images to study license plate numbering systems around the world. It might also be some random guy's plate, and people who see that pic might be wondering what he's doing with a red light and a policeman's uniform. Squidfryerchef 13:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have indicated on the image now that the plate has been randomised. SGGH speak! 23:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i think government owned properties are ok to be identified with license plates - just personal vehicles should have license plates air burshed out, only - public ones are ok though. that is my opinion. BriEnBest (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tompkins Square Park Police Riot (1988) GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles and just reviewed Tompkins Square Park Police Riot (1988). I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues consideringe sourcing that should be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I am leaving this message at this project page, along with the other relevant task forces/WikiProjects/editors to the article, since the article falls under this topic and figured you might be interested in helping to improve the article further. The article needs just a few more inline citations and some minor cleanup, and if fixed, I'll pass the article. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page, and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparative bullet-lead analysis

I notice that the comparative bullet-lead analysis is not linked to by any actual articles. I think that it deserves a mention at forensic science, at least, to remind people that not everything which is treated as forensic science actually has scientific merit. -- 192.250.34.161 (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some one will take a look (I'm on a wikibreak at the moment) but don't forget being bold! --SGGH speak! 18:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Azie Faison

I just saw this article and thought maybe it would be of interest to members on this project. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's more WP:CRIME than us, but thank you linking us to it :) SGGH speak! 23:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to message left at Portal talk:Criminal justice

In response to a note from SGGH (talk · contribs) left at Portal talk:Criminal justice, there's not really that much more that needs to be done for the portal - I personally have one currently up at WP:FPORTC, and another currently undergoing review at WP:PPREV. Once the review for the portal I have undergoing a portal peer review is done, I'll submit this one for a review next. As far as ways that the WP:LE project could help out - the two best areas of the portal that will need updating over time are the Portal:Criminal justice/Featured content and Portal:Criminal justice/Things you can do subsections. If you know of any other WP:FA or WP:GA-rated articles not yet included in the "Selected article" or "Selected biography" sections, please let me know. Please respond to this comment at Portal talk:Criminal justice - that way we can keep relevant portal-related discussions over there. Cirt (talk) 06:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Forward THREE

To all users, in light of reading the recent changes people's version of our forwards, I have decided to set up the following system of awards, to run until February 28 2008. As you know, we have three levels of award, one stripe, three stripes and three stipes with a medal underneath (see them here and there is also a document holder award, for those who just don't have the place to store all their wiki-notes.

Therefore, if users (in this project or not) furfill any of the below criteria, they are elligible for the award!

  • Create 5+ articles, of any size, that are in the scope of this project, ensure they are all tagged! - One-stripe Project Award (A1)
  • Create or substantially (over 50%) expand 10+ articles, of any size, that are in the scope of this project, ensure they are all tagged! - Three-stripe Project Award (A2)
  • Create or substantially (over 50%) expand 15+ articles, of any size, that are in the scope of this project, ensure they are all tagged! - Three-stripe and Medal Project Award (A3)
  • Welcome over half of the new members to the project, from January 20 2008 until the end of this forward - Document holder award (A4)
  • Produce for the project any good quality, law enforcement related images from January 20 until February 28 - One-strip Project Award (A5)
  • Revert/warn 15+ vandalisms to articles that are part of this project - One Anti-Vandalism Barnstar (A6)
  • Be substantially involved in promoting one law enforcement article to GA - Three-stripe Project Award (A7)
  • Be substantially involved in promoting one law enforcement article to FA - Three-stripe and Medal Project Award (A8)
  • Tag 15+ Law Enforcement Article Talk Pages with the projects banner within the WP:LE Scope - One-Stripe Project Award (A9)

Please sign up below (the forward is open to all coordinators, myself included, though we will be giving each other the awards if we complete any of the above) and, when you have completed them, please list the (A_) of the task yu have completed, and please provide diffs if possible. Come February 28, prizes will be handed out!

Lets get involved, and kick this project up a gear! SGGH speak! 11:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sign up for the forward!

Arkansas State Police

OK, so I'm back on the project... got caught up with other WikiProjects. Anyway, I've just started editing Arkansas State Police and am wondering how to get it to a decent standard. I've removed stuff that's not compliant with WP:NOT, but aren't sure how to expand it further, since I don't know very much about it.

See the talk page for more details. Thanks, --Solumeiras (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Run it through out peer review system would be best, but we shall take a look :) SGGH speak! 22:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taser, Taser controversy articles

There is an ongoing discussion regarding whether to merge these two articles, which I think would benefit from outside comment. This issue is not complex or technical, but I thought I would try here first. If a RfC is eventually filed, which topic area should be used?

The latest discussion is at Talk:Taser#Suggested merge with Taser controversy again, with a few links to previous discussions there. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 03:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Texas DPS and THP

I've begun expanding the information on Texas Department of Public Safety and Texas Highway Patrol I appreciate any feedback provided.Jar3079 (talk) 05:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can request a peer review from the project to help, but a brief glace just before dinner tells me that some footnotes may be a good place to start. Try to get to some more later SGGH speak! 17:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drugfire

Hi everyone. I just created the article Drugfire (It was under the Wikipedia:WikiProject Law Enforcement/Requested articles). I have already tagged it as being and article being releated to this WikiProject and removed it from the Requested Articles page and now I need somone else to go and assess it for me, I would appreciate it if somone could go and evaluate it for me

Thanks.--Mifter (talk) 23:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have done so, you can use the "request for assessment" page in the future I see that you did :) SGGH speak! 17:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Door breaching article

I've started a new article on door breaching, because the dynamic entry and forcible entry articles were short and not well sourced. My goal is to get "door breaching" into a good state that covers fire, EMS, police, and military breaching equipment and techniques. The dynamic entry article can then cover the other aspects, such as room clearing, and forcible entry should probably merge into the breaching article. Right now all my good sources are military (the joys of public domain field manuals) but the police, fire, and EMS aspects are pretty skimpy. I'd appreciate any help or comments. scot (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bulletin board?

Excuse my ignorance as being new to Wikipedia, but where is the "bulletin board" as profiled on the front page for this project. Perhaps I cannot see it for looking! Pee Tern (talk) 03:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Defintion of WikiProject Law Enforcement?

The front page for this project Wikipedia:WikiProject Law Enforcement states:

Welcome to the Law Enforcement Wikiproject on the English Wikipedia! We are a group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to law enforcement.

However, law enforcement redirects to Police, and there is a lot more to law enforcement than policing. Either we need an article actually on law enforcement, and-or law enforcement should be a disambiguation page, for example User:Pee Tern/Sandbox/lea dab

Pee Tern (talk) 03:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinions sought at Certis CISCO

Dear fellow WikiProject Law Enforcement members, I am currently involved in a content dispute over at Talk:Certis CISCO over a seemingly "inappriopriate" list of incidents by users who do not seem to be otherwise particularly concerned or interested in Law Enforcement matters. Would appreciate anyone who may offer their opinions there. Thanks!--Huaiwei (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Law_Enforcement&oldid=191680733"