Talk:Europol

More into an encyclopedic article

This page should be made more into an encyclopedic article, no? --Vikingstad 02:53, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It certainly should. Particularly because nowhere here or on the article page does it say anything about their having given us permission ("The materials provided in this web site may be used for private purposes. For use, reproduction or transmission for purposes other than private use, please request permission from EUROPOL.") to cut and paste their entire faq. –Hajor 03:03, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have now fixed the page, but I have still a lot of text from the original article. This shouldn't be a problem though, it is an official governmental website after all! --Vikingstad 03:45, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hey, good work! –Hajor 03:49, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Getting the temp back?

Maybe we should move the temp back now? Haven't really worked on it, but it's a lot better than the old FAQ... --Vikingstad 00:54, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not actually sure... I thought if it's been listed on the CopyVio page then we have to leave it here for at least a week -- at the end of which someone comes along, deletes the main page, and moves the /temp page over there, thus removing the CopyVio version from the history? With a bit of luck, someone more knowledgable will be reading this and help us out. –Hajor 01:05, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I have now sent an email to EUROPOL requesting permission to use this information. Let's hope they respond, and as soon they do I'll move the temp section over to the real article page. --Vikingstad 01:13, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

The copyvio has been deleted and your /temp new article has been moved here. - Texture 18:36, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If this is not what was intended, please contact me. - Texture 18:36, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

re-writing

I'm writing my thesis on this topic so I'll post up an extended version shortly & update it fairly regularly.

Niall

History

Put in a history section. Is it relevant enough? Too long/short? Have I overlooked anything? Will put in other sections or edit/update existing ones shortly.

HEY! Why is "Police" linked in the expansion of "Europol" ? Not a single person on this earth knows with "European" means but doesn't know what "Police" means. Knock off the gratuitous links!

hey! IT IS A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF THE EXPANSION AND SECURISING EU SO THAT'S WAY POLICE IT IS MENTION HERE AND HAVE A VERY HIGH IMPORTANCE.. READ MORE KNOW MORE!!!

Map

Cyprus is missing on the map. - Fabhcún 21:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

legal basis

As of 1 January 2010 Europol is working on a new legal basis. I will try to mention this in the article soon. Ukonwatanabe (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

red dot on the map

what is it marking? definitely not the hague... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.152.1.1 (talk) 12:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering about that too. I moved the marker. 84.27.15.58 15:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The Hague is in England?! I did not know that... 70.137.128.56 (talk) 06:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The dot appears in different places for Internet Explorer and Firefox. Given that IE is still the most commonly used browser, this should be fixed. --Douwe20 (talk) 13:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Using IE, it appears to be marking Berlin. The Hague is, ofcourse, on the West coast of the Netherlands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.172.64.163 (talk) 13:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:EUROPOL logo.svg

Image:EUROPOL logo.svg 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 insure 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 09:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Two infoboxes.

I have added the LEA infobox. The EU infobox I have left, because it does other stuff.

I will look at how the stuff can be combined into one infobox, the LEA one.

In the meantime, any comments or suggestions in this regard?

Peet Ern (talk) 23:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we should use the EU agency box only, firstly because I personally want that box to be used for all EU agencies in a uniform way, secondly because Europol (as opposed to FBI/CIA) has few legal rights to arrest or to do other typical law enforcement. Currently, Europol is a paper-work agency that eases communication between EU member states' national police. At present it's considered to be more an intricate organisation in the EU system, rather than a law enforcer. As far as I've seen, the LEA infobox offers no desirable variables for Europol that the EU box doesn't.

To use a corny analogy; Europol's belonging in the family of EU agencies is stronger than its belonging in the family international law enforcement agencies. - $\mathrm {S}$ $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$ 13:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

agree. good as the LEA box is, it's not really suitable here. ninety:one 13:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

LEA's by definition form very close ties with other law enforcement agencies. Their characteristics are much more similar to other LEAs than to other agencies of the same governing body. So, I would argue that their infobox characteristic family is more with other LEAs.

Note that the definition of LEA in Law enforcement agency includes paper work agencies, that is they actively and directly assist other LEAs, even though they do not have intrusive powers themselves. This is not unique to Europol. For example Crimtrac, an Australian law enforcement agency, has no enforcement or search powers at all, and is solely an information exchange and facilitation organisation, but has been formally declared a law enforcement agency (in part for reasons related to the legal power to handle sensitive and private information).

I do understand the dichotomy we are faced with here. This argument could be had with probably every organisation, infobox by corporate personality or infobox by type of business.

So far I am not convinced.

Peet Ern (talk) 01:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Information

The article now states: It has been decided that Europol will be converted to a full EU agency on 1 January 2010, thus simplifying the procedure to reform it; until then, reforms have to be made through an amendment to the Europol Convention.

Maybe this text should be removed entirely and instead add some more information as per the Europol website:(http://www.europol.europa.eu/index.asp?page=facts): The establishment of Europol was agreed in the Maastricht Treaty on European Union of 7 February 1992. Based in The Hague, Netherlands, Europol started limited operations on 3 January 1994 in the form of the Europol Drugs Unit (EDU) fighting against drugs. Progressively, other important areas of criminality were added. As of 1 January 2002, the mandate of Europol was extended to deal with all serious forms of international crime as listed in the annex to the Europol Convention. The Europol Convention was ratified by all Member States and came into force on 1 October 1998. Following a number of legal acts related to the Convention, Europol commenced its full activities on 1 July 1999. Lars 08:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Map

Sould it not be pointing at Europols headquarters?--SelfQ (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Controversy?

The Controversy section, to be frank, is not a consistent argument as to why the current situation would be controversial. It reads like the first half of an encyclopedia paragraph. To whoever wrote it: I understand that this section needs to exist, but what are you getting at? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.17.199.113 (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggest delete this section unless and until there is some citeable controversy worth noting. All it does at present is note who Europol is NOT accountable to (and the mention of national MPs is pointless since no EU structure is accountable in that way). Accountability is reasonably described in the previous section. Davidships (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Budget

"Europol is accountable at EU level to the Council of Ministers for Justice and Home Affairs. The Council is responsible for the main control and guidance functions of Europol. It appoints the Director and the Deputy Directors and approves together with the European Parliament, Europol’s budget, which is part of the general budget of the EU." cited frm website: https://www.europol.europa.eu/content/page/management-147 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.94.191.131 (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

And: "The monitoring of the commitment and disbursement of expenditure as well as the establishment and collection of the income of Europol follows the general rules of the EU. Europol has to abide by the same principles as any other agency and institution of the EU, such as budgetary discipline and sound financial management. The annual accounts of Europol are subject to an audit carried out by the European Court of Auditors." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.94.191.131 (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing

User:Shadowdasher thanks for improving this article but you are relying way too much on Europol for sourcing. Please use independent, secondary sources. This page cannot become a proxy for Europol's website - see WP:PROMO as well as every content policy and guideline, which all say that articles should be built from independent, secondary sources. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, totally valid point. I would just rather build the basic, descriptive blocks from primary sources at the moment, since 90 % of the article was way outdated or uncited a few weeks ago. See WP:PRIMARYCARE and especially "An article about a business". Will focus on more secondary sources later on. Shadowdasher (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)