Talk:Royal Canadian Mounted Police

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Royal Canadian Mounted Police:

To-do list is empty: remove {{To do}} tag or click on edit to add an item.

Priority * -- 22:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Canada / Governments / Law / History (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Governments of Canada.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian law.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject History of Canada.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Law Enforcement (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject. Please Join, Create, and Assess.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 
WikiProject Espionage (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon Royal Canadian Mounted Police is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Espionage and Espionage-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 

Sentence fragment deleted[edit]

This sentence fragment deleted: "approximately 198 municipalities, and 192 First Nations communities." Clarification required. [2004.12.31 - JPiper]

RCMP's motto[edit]

"Maintiens le droit".

Cher Monsieur "142.165.92.240",

On n'a guère besoin de quelqu’un dont le seul but dans la vie c’est la corruption de la langue. Votre traduction n’était pas du tout juste, et je l’ai corrigée en insérant la formulation juste. C’est “Uphold the law”. On ne dit jamais “Maintain the right” en anglais. Qu’est-ce que ça veut dire?

Si on veut faire des traductions du français en anglais, il faut qu’on apprenne les deux langues tout d'abord!


Kelisi 2005/2/7

Well, "Maintain the Right" does have the same meaning as "Uphold the law," though the latter is much more concise.Habsfannova 22:43, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Perhaps it's more concise, but Maintiens le droit can only mean "Maintain the right" if by "right" you mean an unassailable entitlement. Which one does it mean, then? The right to free assembly? The right to legal representation in court? No, the French word droit in this context can only mean the law. If you want to say "Maintain the right" in French, as in that which is morally correct, you would have to say Maintiens le bien. As for the "uphold" part, that's simply a question of usage. The usual formulation in English has us upholding the law, rather than maintaining it. ———Kelisi 2005/2/9

Victis 2006-05-29

Iam a member of the RCMP and throughout training the translation of "Maintain the Right" was the one taught by drill staff at Depot. as far as the RCMP website claiming the translation of "defending the law" thats a totally new one for me


The official translation on the RCMP website & Intranet website is "Defending the law". My DDT instructor did make us scream "Maintain the Right", but that doesn't mean it's the official translation... ;) Vlimar (talk) 02:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the translation altogether. The motto is one of those old English mottoes that happen to be in French, like "Honi soit qui mal y pense" and "Dieu et mon droit". Nobody knows what they mean, and that's why we can't agree here. No translation is necessary, anyway, since it's an English motto in French, if you know what I mean. Whatever it means, it can't be what was there before I removed it: "Maintain the law". That is not idiomatic English. "Uphold the law", maybe, but "droit" here does not seem to mean "law", which is "loi", isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.207.122.174 (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

See # "My translation can beat up your translation!". The translation is what the RCMP itself claims, and your OR interpretation that it is worng is not sufficient to remove it. Please try to gain a consensus for removing the translation, as I've restored it per Bold, revert, discuss. - BillCJ (talk) 19:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Excellent! An argument the outcome of which matters to me not in the slightest. I'm not playing duelling translations, I'm saying two things. One, the translation in the infobox is wrong because it is not idiomatic English. I'm not saying it's a mistranslation (see part two, below), I'm saying that it can't be right because it's not English. Two, you'll please observe that I've already said that nobody today knows what those olden Norman French mottoes mean. You know what? Three things: there is no need to translate what is already an English motto. I suggest a new article about the motto, like the existing ones for Honi soit qui mal y pense and Dieu et mon droit. --71.207.122.174 (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
And thus you missed the entire point here. All WP does is report what other sources say, preferably reliable one. The RCMP claims a meaning/translation for the term, and that's what's there. Perhaps there is a better way to make that clear than using the word "translation", but that's the output of the field in the template. Maybe adding "meaning per the RCMP" to the line would make it more clear. As for an article on the phrase, it would have to relay totally on published reliable sources. If that comes to more than 2 or 3 sentences, then it would probably make a decent article.
There is a parallel with the motto uses by several Commonwealth air forces, Per ardua ad astra. Thought the article on the phrase does not make this clear, the RAF and RAAF translate it as "Through Struggle to the Stars", while others prefer "Through Adversity to the Stars". SO in the RAF and RAAF articles, the meanign is cited to the service web pages tht give their accepted meaning. That is what I have done here with the RCMP's motto, simply quoted what they say it means. - BillCJ (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Someone has changed the translation again. The translation the RCMP uses is "Maintain the Right." That is a literal translation. Right in this case meaning right as in just/righteous (the prior argument confusing this with "rights" ignores context). There's no justification for this "defending the law" translation, although the editor did source it to a Quebec page. It seems clear from this discussion that the source should be the RCMP if we have a translation at all. Probably we should go back to having no translation, since there is so much contention and the motto is what it is (besides the point made above that this is a Norman motto anyway). The Badges and Insignia page for RCMP only gives the motto, untranslated. One of the books the RCMP suggest for reading on their history, however, is entitled "Maintain the Right." If you google this phrase you will find this is the most common translation given and an oft-repeated exhortation for the RCMP. It is in their official communications, too (as pointed out by the RCMP editor above), and used on their page, for instance here. I will find a better link for this, but for now I am reverting to the motto the RCMP uses. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Okay, no I'm not, because I was wrong about that page not having a translation and it does say "defending the law." That's not what other pages of the RCMP site use, and it's not what is usually given as the translation, but it is there. I think maybe someone should put in a request to the RCMP to give some kind of official reference for it. It is true that when they "maintain the right" they are defending the law, so that might be why that was there. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that, while it is true that, in following their motto, they are defending the law, "maintiens le droit" is an imperative statement in French, so the translation cannot be "defending the law". "Defend the law" would be plausible. There wasn't originally an 's' at the end of "maintiens", in which case it might have been intended to be "maintient le droit", i.e. "defends the law", but it definitely wasn't intended to be "maintenant le droit", which it would need to be in order to translate to "defending the law". SteveMcQwark (talk) 05:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Removed vandalism[edit]

I really don't see how the following related to the RCMP:

" Related link

I removed another vandalism subject line. Can we semi-protect this page, as it's sensible nature? Vlimar (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing they meant to link to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_machine_%28homosexuality_test%29

On account of it's apparent use by the mounties at some point.

Punkonjunk (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

picture[edit]

Can we have at least one picture like this: http://www.edmontonairports.com/data/1/rec_imgs/243_rcmp.jpg on this page? dave 00:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

You want a picture of a mountie smiling as they scrape whats left of some guy from an accident in the background? - Lucky13pjn 03:05, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Photo is of a training exercise.[[1]] Glenlarson 16:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Still, it's a creepy picture. - Lucky13pjn 19:35, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Hehe, I didn't really pay too much attention to the background. It could be cropped though. dave 16:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
If you mean why cant we have a picture of an officer not in the formal red outfit, I agree. Zhatt 18:01, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, I was surprised to find an article that doesn't show a mocern Mountie doing ordinary police work. The pics are all either antique or showing personnel in the stereotypical full dress red uniform. Fishhead64 20:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I also think this seriously needs to be addressed. The article is hard to read without getting angry if you're Canadian. (70.54.11.183 (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC))
Yes I agree. There's got to be an emphasis on the police work rather than ornamental/cultural attributes. 118.90.25.253 (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Almost 4 years of converation. This needs to be adressed ASAP 68.150.205.237 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC).
If someone can find one of Jackson Davies' Beachcombers' role, that would do the trick. The current pic on the Wiki Beachcombers only shows Nick and Jesse, so that's no help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.66 (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Featured Article[edit]

I would like to make RCMP a Featured article, but before that happens it will need to be peer reviewed, and before that happens there are a few things I know need to be fixed:

  1. Sources/References need to be added. I've started this process. See: Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:Footnote2.
  2. The history of the service section need to have more of a flow to the reader and be less of a list. Maybe subsections with titles; "Jurisdiction expansion", expansion of responsibilities" etc..
  3. The Rochfort Bridge Massacre section is repeated. Lets put it in one section (perhaps a section in the history titles "Recent event", say, stuff that has happened in the last 30-50 years.
  4. RCMP in wartime. Isn't this part of the history section?
  5. See Also. I hate the See also section. Shouldn't things such as training and recruiting be written into the article itself, with a "See main article" at the top of the section?

- Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 02:14, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Northwest Mounted Police[edit]

Northwest Mounted Police redirects here, but there is no explanation in the article. I know nothing about the subject, I just got linked here accidentally when wikifying Arthur Reginald French. Rl 08:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes there is. It says in the history section that the RCMP descends from the NWMP. -- Necrothesp 13:04, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I see. let me rephrase then: The article doesn't mention that NWMP expands to Northwest Mounted Police. Rl 13:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, it refers to the Northwest Mounted Police and then later in the same section refers to the NWMP, which I would have thought was quite obviously an abbreviation. But I'll add it if it's confusing. -- Necrothesp 14:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience. If I get redirected to a long article and I can't see the word I was looking for, I let my browser search for it. The article mentions "North West Mounted Police", but I had been redirected from "Northwest Mounted Police". That explains why I missed the obvious. I can't think of an example off the top of my head, but in such cases we try to mention the redirect word in the first paragraph. So in this case, maybe something like "The unit was called North West Mounted Police (NWMP) from its creation in 1873 to 1904." Rl 14:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

"Fair shake"[edit]

I'd like to comment that overall, this is an excellent article. But one paragraph sort of sticks out as POV and/or unverifiable:

The RCMP is arguably one of the most professional police forces in the world. While their purpose is to enforce the law, they do so in a very professional and courteous manner. They are known even to the criminal class in Canada as a law enforcement organization who will give you a fair, albeit in accordance with the law, shake at all times.

I don't doubt that the RCMP are fair and courteous -- although I've never been stopped by them.  :) But the "arguably" and "known even to the criminal class" phrases trouble me. How can it be verified that the criminal class regards the RCMP as fair? Can this be verified and/or rewritten? I hesitate to do anything in this regard because I don't know where to start. - Sensor 03:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Er...[edit]

The article currently explains that the RCMP are both the federal police and the national police. Could someone please explain the difference?Agent_Koopa

In this case I don't think there is a difference. The RCMP basically serves two duties, one as a federal investigative squad (similar to the FBI) and also providing standard policing services to places which don't have municipal or provincial police. This probably meant to say 'Federal and Provincial' or something similar. Kylar 17:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference, which makes the RCMP unique. Federal police enforce federal laws (such as the FBI in the US), whereas national police are responsible for policing the nation (territory wise, unlike the FBI). These two concepts are wikilinked, so ideally any confusion can be easily cleared up. Bobanny 06:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

See Law enforcement agency for the difference/s. Peet Ern (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


This article could be better. While RCMP is Canadian, Wiki is American, so the punctuation should stay inside the quotation marks. Also, when the fatally Tasered man (note cap) who'd just emigrated from Poland (know the dif between immigrate and emigrate?), he didn't fail to clear customs, he failed to clear Customs. Hope this helps. 66.183.40.210 (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the capitalization of "tasered", there is some discussion at Talk:Taser#Style. I verified that the noun "Taser" is most often capitalized in reliable sources, but it looks like someone should do the same verification for the verb. Flatscan (talk) 04:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
While I'm not sure there is a difference on this grammatical point in the article, Wikipedia policy is to use grammatical conventions used in the country the article deals with. Articles on British subjects, for example, use British English. However, minor changes like the capitalization of Customs hardly needs discussion, you might as well fix it yourself and put a note about it in the edit summary. TastyCakes (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I repeat: Wiki is American, so all articles should be in American English, as if this were the New York Times. 66.183.42.201 (talk) 05:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC) That is not wikipedia policy - and this is an article on a Cdn subject, so it should be Canadian English, however, punctuation inside of quotations is the only way I've ever been taught in Canada (elsewhere in the world ie UK, Malaysia, Australia it's the opposite). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.218.83 (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:ENGVAR. Summarised - if the subject of the article has a strong tie a type of regional English, use that for the article. It also expressly says not to go about changing regional English varieties.--Alf melmac 11:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
It's funny, I didn't even know about this difference in American/Commonwealth English, but now that he's brought it up I'm going to go and put punctuation after quotations as per this article. TastyCakes (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Common practice is to use logical quotation per WP:Manual of Style#Quotation marks. If the period is present in the original source, the period would go inside the quotation marks. Flatscan (talk) 04:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
So it seems the guy was incorrect for wikipedia in general, since the periods he changed weren't part of the quotation text... TastyCakes (talk) 05:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Image[edit]

I'd like to remind contributors here that we always use free, reusable images in preference to unfreely-licensed ones, even if the latter is more professional-looking or more pleasing. It is part of our fundamental goal to create a free, reusable encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:Fair use for more information about unfree content on Wikipedia, and, in particular, Wikipedia:Fair use criteria "Always use a more free alternative if one is available. Such images can often be used more readily outside the U.S. If you see a fair use image and know of an alternative more free equivalent, please replace it, so the Wikipedia can become as free as possible. Eventually we may have a way to identify images as more restricted than GFDL on the article pages, to make the desire for a more free image more obvious." Thanks. Jkelly 17:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This is all fine and good, but the rationale is being misapplied in this instance and the concomitant rationale dubious. Both images are from government-sanctioned sources – one (with horse) directly from the RCMP and another (Mountie amidst crowd) from the Library and Archives Canada – and thus are comparably 'free'. Thus, there's little justification to replace the one image with horse (allegedly 'unfree') with another non-descript one of Mountie amidst crowd (allegedly 'free'). Moreover, the one with horse at least depicts the unique Musical Ride; so in so far as it remains the purview of one article (this one) there shouldn't be a problem. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Er, also, if one is edit-warring to remove free content, please don't remove a link to Wikimedia Commons while doing it. Thanks. Jkelly 17:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
My apologies regarding the commons link, but I suggest you brush up on Wp image sourcing guidelines and more clearly justifying and discussing this or that before precipitating a nonsensical edit/reversion. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Is that what all of this was about -- you thought that I was inserting an image incorrectly labelled as free? Not everything at Library and Archives Canada is free; you're quite right; luckily L&AC are quite clear about what is and what is not. You can see the restrictions on use for this image, for instance. It's copyrighted-any-purpose. Other material there is copyright-non-commercial, and other material there has an expired copyright. I'd like to assure you that I am, actually, very careful about this sort of thing. If the Commons image wasn't free, I would agree that the one from the RCMP website was preferable. Jkelly 17:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Not really. You seem to be operating under the perhaps false assumption, or perhaps I am (but I don't think so), that the pic you prefer is any different in ultimate usability from the one that I've uploaded. In other words, I believe the pic with horse is similarly 'free' and not 'non-free'. As linked (and with copyright note) and as the 'Important notices' indicate (namely copyrighted, public, non-commercial use), I'm not yet convinced that this fundamentally differs from the L&AC picture. Moreover, the horse pic depicts the (unique) Ride: something which the pic of the Mountie amidst crowd, or any other that I see in Wp, doesn't. The RCMP logo is another example. I'm unconcerned if it's in the Commons or not and am remiss to edit war.
My point is this: given that both images are essentially from the same source – the Canadian government – it seems nonsensical to deem one as being (more) 'free' while the other as being (less) 'free' or not. And forgive my prior brusqueness. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
The licensing on the two images is different, and I don't know how to demonstrate that other than pointing you to the L&AC licensing information. The L&AC one allows commercial use and derivatives, the one from the RCMP website doesn't. For free, reusable images of the Musical Ride, see Commons cat Musical Ride, which is a subcat of the Commons Category Royal Canadian Mounted Police. All I can say is that, yes, you're right, there are images at L&AC that are under Crown Copyright, or are under some other unfree copyright, but that is indicated in the licensing description (see this image of Castro for example -- it isn't free to reuse). Did you see, in the link to the source of the image I gave above, the copyright and licensing information? Jkelly 18:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I see that now, thanks. However, the commons images are insufficient; while they depict the Ride, they are black-and-white and unsuitable to dually depict the Red Serge uniform and the Ride.
I also think that, given the RCMP logo on the same page (which generally have similar or added restrictions than that of the horse pic regarding usage), standards are being applied inequitably and inconsistently for reasons not what. In any event, I will seek alternate means to obtain a picture that cannot be contested. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to nominate another picture for this article, (perhaps to replace the current image of the Mountie and the crowd). The image is found here and is Creative Commons 2.0 licensed so posting it shouldn't be a problem. Does anyone have any thoughts on this image? Alangstone 02:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I've uploaded a picture that my wife and I took at: [with Red Serge] for the Red Serge article, but it could as easily be applied to this article. Kylar 16:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:RCMP mounted rally at Queens Park.jpg[edit]

I see that this picture has been in for a while and was wondering why it was still there. It's not clear from the Toronto Police Service picture but if you go to Toronto Police Service it becomes obvious that they are not two RCMP. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the description at Commons. Jkelly 23:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ranks[edit]

The chevrons in the rank insignia for Staff Sergeant are reversed. Also, a Staff Sergeant-Major outranks a Sergeant-Major.

I'm inquiring about the validity of this with the RCMP and getting a reference. Kylar 17:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

OK I validated - the rank insignia for Staff Sgt is correct - it's the only rank insignia where the chevrons point up. Also validated that our list of ranks is correct - Sar-Major outranks Staff Sar-Major. RCMP Website at [List of RCMP Ranks] and [Insignia for Ranks, RCMP Noncomissioned Officers] validates this. Kylar 00:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Intro[edit]

The intro was far too long, as per the WP manual of style, and contained unsourced innuendo - to wit:

It has been theorized that the international popularity of the force lies in it being representative of a symbol of the balance of civilization and the frontier. That is, the RCMP is a police force that operates in the seemingly wild frontier, but operates under the behest of a central, if somewhat removed, bureaucratic authority back in the settled regions. In addition, the existence of the RCMP in Canada and the complete lack of any analogous organization in the Western United States during the frontier period has often been cited as both a cause and effect of cultural differences between Canada and the United States.

The RCMP are possibly the most widely recognised symbol of Canada internationally, both for good and ill. Canadians in general and members of the Force in particular are proud of the international reputation of the RCMP for probity and integrity; on the other hand, Canada appears to have the reputation in the U.S.A. and the UK for an excess of order and decorum, and in that context the RCMP is both a help and a hindrance, depending on whether that image is thought desirable. In general, however, Canadians scorn their American and British friends' attitudes in this regard and delight both in the image of the RCMP and in their country's reputation for civility and order.

Not only is this not a neutral point of view, but it is unsourced and original research. It's also needless USA bashing, which seems to be fashionable in Canada. No way any of this belongs in the article without being sources - and even then, not in the intro, IMO.Michael DoroshTalk 19:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Separate RCMP history page?[edit]

It seems to me that a separate page for the RCMP's history is warranted since it is a huge player in Canadian history and Canadian mythology. The Cold War era in particular strikes me as lacking, because the Mounties spent a huge amount of energy and resources battling the Red Menace, carrying on that work from their RNWMP predecessors. To not mention the commies in RCMP 20th century history is more than just leaving out an interesting bit of trivia, but ignores a major factor that shaped the experiences of Canadians. Perhaps "subversives" is better here than just commies by themselves; the 'fruit machine' is relevant in RCMP history (although that vandal's link wasn't helpful and no, it wasn't me). See: Gary Kinsmen, "'Character Weakness' and 'Fruit Machines': Towards an Analysis of the Anti-Homosexual Security Campaign in the Canadian Civil Service " in Labour/Le Travail, 35 (Spring 19995). Although I know less about the 19th century, it seems the NWMP gets a little shafted here as well, in light of their important role in the Canadian nation-building myth and reality. Anyone else have thoughts on this? Maybe a separate page wouldn't be appropriate, maybe just another paragraph or more links would be more Wiki-appropriate.Bobanny 18:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Ian Bush?[edit]

Should the Ian Bush incident [2] in Houston, British Columbia be covered (or at least mentioned) here? - 70.71.155.24 01:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I added a small blurb with regards to the incident. Any fleshing out should probably be done over at the Ian Bush article. Knave75 22:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticism?[edit]

I've just done a search for typical keywords (so excuse me if I've missed something) and it does not appear this article contains any criticism of the RCMP. Which seems odd, given the increasing amount of criticism that there has been in communities and media across Canada. Am I looking in the wrong place? Maybe there is a whole article dedicated to this topic that just isn't linked very clearly? Somegeek 19:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree (see my note above about a separate RCMP history page). There is, however, an article on Scandals surrounding the RCMP.Bobanny 20:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, only one small link at the bottom that shows the scandals of the RCMP. No mention of it anywhere else in the article. That isn't fair and balanced at all. The scandals of the RCMP make Hoover's FBI look like small time crooks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.107.174 (talk) 05:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of Horses[edit]

Under the history of the uniform section, it states that "Horses are no longer used operationally by any unit." I do not believe this to be true as horses are used to patrol Stanley Park in Vancouver.

Those are from the Vancouver Police Department's mounted squad, not the RCMP.Bobanny 06:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks fot the clarification, I wasn't sure. Zoobtoob 04:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

PRIME[edit]

I'm putting this section here in case someone really, really, feels it needs to be in the article and is willing to do it up right. It reads like a press release, and the 'ironic' critique is equally POV, and there's no citations. As it is, it adds nothing and instead detracts from the article. Bobanny 05:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

PRIME-BC[edit]

RCMP “E” Division has partnered with other municipal police agencies and the B.C. provincial government in the implementation of a common police information system. In February 2003, B.C. Solicitor General, Rich Coleman introduced legislation that all police forces in the province use a common information system to enhance public safety and improve law enforcement across the province. PRIME-BC (Police Records Information Management Environment for British Columbia), will connect every municipal police department and RCMP detachment throughout the province and provide access to information about criminals and crimes instantly to all police agencies.

BC is the first jurisdiction in the country to adopt a province-wide, online police records management system that provides interoperability among all policing agencies in the province.

“The RCMP is thrilled to be part of this program that brings BC to the leading edge of technology in policing,” said Bev Busson, deputy commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Pacific Region. “This innovative system gives us an exciting opportunity to share vital information with our partners in municipal law enforcement and better serve the citizens of British Columbia.”

“Our goal is to become a leader in integrated policing,” said Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli. “That means cooperation and coordination across Canada’s law enforcement community, using shared intelligence, tools and innovations. Only by working together and working smarter can we lay the foundation for integrated policing.” This quote is considered as ironic as the Commissioner is referring to PRIME as working smarter. "E" Division is the only division of the RCMP using the PRIME system while the rest of Canada has switched over to PROS. While the rest of Canada is able to share information and work on files together, "E" Division is stuck by themselves. Hardly "working smarter."

Duties of various ranks[edit]

Anyone up to adding a description of the duties normally associated with each rank? Also, how one becomes an officer (in the sense of superintendent and up) might be of interest. Quadra 02:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Would be willing to aid with formatting, if the raw info were to be dumped somewhere - see format on Royal Canadian Sea Cadets#Rank. Quadra 19:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no short answer to either of those. Generally rank increases based on responsibility, number of people managed, and sometimes expertise. There is almost no specific duty associated with any particular rank. A promotion in rank is based upon passing a series of criteria then finally taking a position that is rated at the next rank. A detachment commander (which is a specific duty) could be anywhere from a Corporal to a Chief Superintendent depending on the size of the detachment. The Officer ranks (which begin at Inspector by the way) have a slightly different promotion process than the NCO ranks, but not all that different. My understanding of the Canadian Forces, and maybe other militaries, is that the Officer ranks almost form a separate branch, where someone generally enters the CF as an officer and works up through the officer ranks, whereas an NCO will rarely become commissioned, and the duties are fairly distinct. This is not the case in the RCMP as with probably all police forces in Canada. Instead the ranks are quite linear where an Inspector is simply the next person up the chain of command. There are some differences in that a person can jump ranks into the Officer ranks, but not within the NCO ranks, i.e. a Corporal or Sergeant can promote to Inspector, but a Corporal cannot promote to a Staff Sergeant without first being a Sergeant.
The ranks of C/S/M, S/M and S/S/M are largely ceremonial and don't form part of the typical chain of command, which is why there are so few of them. --Swaff

The RCMP in popular culture -- Dragon Boys[edit]

I want to add a blurb about the Richmond RCMP being depicted in the CBC miniseries Dragon Boys but I'm not sure how to incorporate it without sounding awkward. Basically, the interesting thing about this is its fictional depiction of the real-life Asian crime unit in Richmond (which is there because of Richmond's high Asian population and the crime that came with it). The miniseries actually shows the RCMP as not a homogenously white police force but rather a multicultural one, with many races in the same task unit (including the Asian assistant chief and the main character, an Asian officer). Any ideas on how to incorporate this? I think it's a nice spin on how Canada's changed as a multicultural country. →Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 19:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It could probably just be stuck in there as a sentence or two; that section is a little like that anyway. Used to be the only "foreigners" on the RCMP payroll were spies. But I wonder what the ethnic composition of the top brass is these days. bobanny 05:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth as RCMP commissioner[edit]

I removed this from the introduction. It'd be fine elsewhere in the article, but is too trivial and confusing for the the intro: As a federal organization, the RCMP draws its authority from the Crown (as symbolised in the force's badge, right), and Queen Elizabeth II, as Queen of Canada, is the Honorary Commissioner of the RCMP. However, as Canada is a constitutional monarchy, the Monarch plays no substantive role in the operations of the force. Bobanny 06:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It could/should probably go into the section on ranks, since wouldn't this mean that the reigning monarch would technically be the highest ranking RCMP officer (Albeit honorary?) Kylar 20:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The Queen is the highest-ranking of all officers in Canadian society whether civil, military, or para-military. She embodies the authority from which the police, the courts, the legislatures, the armed forces, derive their own authority. There is a distinction, however, in being named an 'Honorary Commissioner' or 'Honorary Colonel' (of a regiment) in that, it denotes a particular, personal attachment of, in this case, the Queen, to that organisation. Therefore, it is not inappropriate to highlight this honour as it applies to the RCMP.pidd 13:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

parade[edit]

I think it would be nice to have a section on the RCMP parade. 72.11.176.157 23:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


Names of the force:[edit]

I clarified the various names of predecessor forces to the RCMP (though forgot to login when I did it). The organization started as the North-West Mounted Police (note the hyphen), and became the Royal Northwest Mounted Police later (note north and west are one word). This distinction also holds for the NWT. Prior to 1905 North-West is hyphenated while after 1905 Northwest is one word. Little details that help with credibility. Historyted (talk)


—Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyted (talkcontribs) 22:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Problem with Klondike[edit]

I noticed there is a problem with the Klondike portion of the article. Only a fragment of the last segment appears. === is at the start and then there is a scramble of letters at the end. Stinger503 (talk) 04:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"My translation can beat up your translation!"[edit]

I find it odd that so-called "experts" on a given language always seem to disagree on translations for mottos such as the RCMP's motto. The Royal Air Force's motto seems to have the same problems. THe only solution per WP policies is to cite reliable sources, such as the RCMP itself in this case. If there is no official "translation" from the RCMP, or if even RCMP sources disagree, then the accepted solution is to cite all translations with reliable sources. I doubt this will solve all of the bickering, but at least it will give the admins something concrete to look at if they have to intervene. - BillCJ (talk) 07:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

We have this saying "Maintiens le droit" is "defending the law", with maintiens orignally spelled without an "s". It's commonly translated "uphold the right" (which is more literal). "They always get their man" is Hollywood's version (& we all know how trustworthy that is). While I grant websites aren't necessarily considered reliable, I think this one is OK on this subject... TREKphiler hit me ♠ 19:46, 23 July & 06:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Rcmp-chiefsuperintendent.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Rcmp-chiefsuperintendent.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Members[edit]

According to this, the number of Members of the force is 26,292 (as of April 15, 2008). I'm not sure how to add this to the infobox (ie. which parameter(s)). Maybe someone else could figure it out. NorthernThunder (talk) 09:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Please check I have added up the numbers correctly. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Jurisdiction[edit]

Could a rough description of what areas the RCMP covers be given here? My understanding is that they cover any city that doesn't have its own police force and most of the rural areas, is that correct? TastyCakes (talk) 23:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Outside Ontario & Quebec, which have their own forces (OPP & SQ, like U.S. state police), yes. Generally speaking, as I understand it, there are arrangements made with cities/municipalities to do local policing; if a muni wants RCMP out, RCMP is banned (by the law under which it operates). TREKphiler hit me ♠ 06:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I hope I have fixed this by editing the Responsibilities section - Swaff —Preceding undated comment added 07:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC).

Gun for hire[edit]

Adding "small numbers" to this leaves me wondering if the 1079 (cited & sourced here) was "small" in relation to NWMP's total strength in 1883. Can somebody with better sources check & confirm/fix? Thanks. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 06:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Victoria Crosses[edit]

I was the IP who did the reorganization, since I saw there were too many sections to the article (compare 9 to 13) and also way too many unnecessary subsections.

Anyway, in the section which considers the RCMP as a dragoon regiment, I think it would be appropriate to add the regiment's VCs. Someone with a source should consider that. 118.90.25.170 (talk) 07:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


A list of Canadians who were awarded the Victoria Cross exists within Wikipedia, and there are no RCMP members listed as recipients. As for the RCMPs status as a Dragoon regiment, that was honorary only.

"Royal"[edit]

I was the one who reverted the addition of the various links about the royal patronage. As it was clearly stated in the edit summary,

With respect: this is quite unremarkable, since this is a state-controlled organization. The state's patronage or approval is notable when it is a private organization being endorsed.

While I recognize that to people receiving the patronage it is significant. But in the same way that a birthday is significant---it is important to one's self, but maybe not to others. Royal patronage is usually noted when it is a private organization which has distinguished itself so as to be worthy of the endorsement of such a well-known person.

In the case of a government organization, such decisions are never made without political/government/bureaucratic interference, and such a "Royal" designation would have occurred as a matter "of course". E.g. Royal Regiment of Scotland, which obviously was created in the context of military reorganization (here you may say that a predecessor regiment had the designation, but it is irrelevant---the fact that it was explicitly renewed without a second thought is what is being pointed out). 118.90.25.253 (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

And I reverted your edit, as I must respectfully disagree. Whether it is a public or private organization, or an individual, any Royal recognition is significant. In the case a government organization it is not true to say that it would have happened "as a matter of course" -- were that the case every government organization, agency, or military regiment would have received it and that simply is not true. The fact of the matter is that the Royal designation is a significant part of the history of the RCMP. I also think you overstate the level of bureaucratic involvement in the granting of the Royal designation, especially when considering the decision was made in 1904 when there was much more independent action from the monarchy.PoliSciMaster (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps there's a disconnect as to where we see this thing. I don't dispute that state/national/head-of-state/etc patronage (... -> name distinction) is significant. As you said, to the RCMP the patronage is significant, but I noted that the kind of significance is not the kind that changes the RCMP's role in society or something similarly profound---its simply an "upgrade" (if you consider that to be the case) of its name. I'm not going to change the article, since its sourced and attributed. It was just my understanding that it was merely a cosmetic change (or maybe I am missing something that is unique to the Canadian context :D) 118.90.25.253 (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Your example of a birthday is quite apposite. Though there is nothing profoundly interesting about a birthday, encyclopedia always include birthdays in biographies. Similarly, the royal designation is no more or less noteworthy than that of Royal Dutch Airlines, or the Royal Marsden Hospital (the Wikipedia article of one of these mentions a royal charter, the other does not): it is not being a state organ that attracts the name, but the significance in public life (as recognized by bureaucracy and royalty.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


Every Day Uniform?[edit]

Could someone possibly change one of the red serge pictures to a street uniform one? browsing the article makes it seem like RCMP still wear the red uniform and ride horses while working. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.65.47.141 (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this, I expected the first image to at least note that the officer was in formal uniform, NOT in work uniform. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.77.198 (talk)
Okay, i have edited the caption of the first image to say the officer is in dress uniform. It would be really cool if we had an image of an officer in dress uniform beside standard uniform. It would be clearest to show both dress and standard together, so readers get the understanding that both exist. Many foreigners think the RCMP are always in red, which we should try to illustrate is not the case. —fudoreaper (talk) 04:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Still, SOMEONE must have a picture of a Mountie in the regular daily uniform, no? Please? Greg Salter (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Status?[edit]

Does the RCMP have a civilian or military status? Can it be somewhat compared to the Italian Carabinieri (4th Armed force in Italy, also goes to war and is in charge of normal civilian security) or maybe more to the Guardia di Finanza (which has a paramilitary status but does not operate foreign mission)?

The fact that the French name contains the word "Gendarmerie" it should mean that the status is somewhat military or paramilitary.


The RCMP is currently a strictly civilian organization. While the Carabinieri of Italy and the Gendarmerie of France have a similar role in that they act as the Federal and National police, they are military personnel and this makes them different from the RCMP. Because they are military members, the French Gendarmerie and Italian Carabinieri also fulfill the role of Military Police within their countries and serve abroad in combat roles. Canada has a separate Military Police that is not affiliated with the RCMP, and RCMP officers that deploy abroad are there to assist/train civilian police and are not in any combat role. As to why the French Canadian name for the RCMP is "Gerdarmerie Royale Canadian" - beats me. It's not a translation of "Royal Canadian Mounted Police", and the RCMP are in no way a "Gendarmerie" in the France sense.


Thanks, one final note: from this website I understand that although it cannot be compared to the Gendarmery forces it has an honorary military status http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?topic=68840.0 This confirms that unlike as it is written in the article, it still is a Dragon Regiment and the status was NOT taken off in the 1960s.

Confusion of dates[edit]

The Cypress Hills Massacre is dated at June 1, 1873. This incident is also cited as the catalyst which led to the formation of the NWMP. However, in this article, May 23, 1873 is given as the date when the creation of the NWMP was given royal assent. One or the other is incorrect. Could someone with greater knowledge check? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.66 (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

international license for what? "use the rcmp?"[edit]

"The Royal Canadian Mounted Police received an international licence on 1 April 1995 requiring those who use the RCMP to pay a licensing fee."

what does this mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.76.168 (talk) 07:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

International Operations Branch[edit]

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/ip-pi/iob-soi-eng.htm

Updated the list of liaison officers to reflect the official version from the Mountie website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.148.46 (talk) 04:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Dubious?[edit]

I wonder why the following statement is considered dubious: "Recent events have caused public criticism of the RCMP, as well as an increasing public perception that the police force is unaccountable to the public." Firstly, the author follows this with two good examples to back up his statement along with citations. Secondly, any person who regularly listens to the Canadian media could hardly not notice that the RCMP have been under much public criticism lately. How many news events regarding potential abuse of powers must be cited before the word "criticism" is no longer dubious? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sterling glenn (talkcontribs) 16:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

sandy bay D.O.P.S[edit]

well last week there station was broken into...and the suspect's stole: D.O.P.S.handgun's,shotgub's,and ammunation,and bullet proff vest..someone should come out to the reserve and investigate..


sandy bay resident:..thank you if u read this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.9.79 (talk) 09:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

split off NWMP[edit]

I suggest splitting off the North West Mounted Police information back into its own article, since this article is quite long, over the 32k automatic warning, over the 50k recommended length, and approaching the 100k length of long talk page archives.

It would neatly separate and form a consistent article. We already have an article on the other force that was merged to form the RCMP, the Dominion Police.

I have already suggested this at WP:CANADA, and will be putting a note onto WP:LE.

70.29.210.242 (talk) 11:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Question Support Are 2.1 Origins and early activities, 2.2 Klondike Gold Rush and 2.3 Evolution of the force the main sections that would be split into the new article (obviously the new article will have it's own content as well). I think we should be aiming for a more comprehensive new article than Dominion Police personally, as it is a bit empty. SGGH ping! 12:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Reply some other material on this article will also be transferred, but the majority of the Origins, Klondike, and alot of the Evolution section would be split, off, with only a summary remaining here. Obviously, the post-merger RCMP material would remain in this article. Additionally, some other information better suited to the NWMP article would be split off, or copied off depending on the instance. Yes, a more comprehensive article than the DP article would be good, and we already have more information here in this article that is solely concerned with the NWMP than then DP article. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm happy with the idea. SGGH ping! 13:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Working on homework with my 15 year-old and having it separate makes sense to us too! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.70.213.189 (talk) 05:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Support and trimming the lead should be the next priority. -Rrius (talk) 23:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

-I am a four year member of the RCMP. I did my time in DEPOT and I am currently in a public education role. I can tell you with stern confidence that the NWMP and the RNWMP are very strong parts of the RCMP's heritage and I disagree with the split. The dominion police, however, are being given too much credit. The NWMP is the true back bone of th origin of Mounties. If you enter any RCMP detachment or sit at any RCMP history presentation you will learn a great deal about the NWMP and see many old paintings of them, however you will not find anything on the dominion police. We did not merge with the dominion but rather absorbed them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.212.150.5 (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

That the NWMP is important is precisely why it should have its own article. The notion to split it off does not arise because people find it of little relevance. Rather, as is often the case, it is because the topic takes up so much space that people think it should spun off to another article, with a summary left behind here. -Rrius (talk) 23:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
New article created Op47 (talk) 21:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

picture[edit]

File:RCMP with serge (1).jpg
Two RCMP officers in dress uniform

would anybody mind if i switched the picture of the mountie with this one? --Sundar1 (talk) 06:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

If I see that red uniform one more time… (nijuro (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC))

J in J. Greg Peters[edit]

What does J mean in J. Greg Peters? Komitsuki (talk) 08:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

So I guess J means John, right? My mistake. Komitsuki (talk) 10:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)