Talk:Police

Recent content removal
I have removed the recently added POV one sided sub section concerning the Police abolition movement from this article presented under the Conduct, accountability and public confidence section. I did it for various reasons such as: 1. General overview article covering the whole world, and that movement was already noted in many places on the page even if it is really active in just some countries, with a lot of criticism and with limited if any success for now. 2. Not a place for advocacy of any kind as per "what Wikipedia is not", especially not a place for POV sections and subsections as undue weight. 3. Better as it was, links and sentences about that movement incorporated into the body of this article exactly as it was. So just to mention, without eventual strong consensus and everything according the Wikipedia policies of what Wikipedia is not, neutrality, undue weight etc, I will always, everyday, remove those eventual changes and restore previous content. This is one encyclopedia not a blog or so. Period. Nubia86 (talk) 13:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello Nubia86. 1. The topic is relevant to the article. 1a. The topic was mentioned in passing in a section about police use of force and connected to one event - when the basis for the topic is broader both in geography, history and cause (hence the expansion). 2. The section wasn't advocacy; it was outlining a response to the article subject, connected to other sections within the article. 2a. Removing edits and saying they were POV does not make those edits POV. 3. "Better as it was" is your POV, it seems. --Woofboy (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Better as it mean also long-standing version, and any major change needs consensus, and for now, I don't see any reason for any change. My arguments are also pretty well explained, and stays all what I wrote about, especially about to this is general global overview article, the movement about abolition is with a lot of criticism and with very limited if any success for now, and better about that content and links to be incorporated into the body of this article and present subsections than creating pov subsections what should be avoided at Wikipedia. So that is it. Nubia86 (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Criminology
What is the background of Police? 210.213.212.92 (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2023
hi? — Preceding unsigned comment added by God Steve (talk • contribs) 15:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Should there be a Criticism of Police? if not, how should critique be integrated?
There is an extensive body of work on the problems with Police as a concept, yet there neither seems to be a page dedicated to this perspective (as is the case for some other political criticism) nor does it seem to be inside this article beyond a single sentence in the lead.

Am i missing something or is this a valid and notable extension to make to Wikipedia?

WP:CRIT contains the applicable guidelines.

I'd argue the existence of Punk, Anarchism and BLM shows that critique is not WP:FRINGE. Bart Terpstra (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I see a normal level of criticism in this page into body of the article without any undue weight and seems ok totally, for example covered under the Conduct, accountability and public confidence section. Only criticism sections are discouraged as per WP:CSECTION. For example, the police abolition movement and Defund the police articles are without those sections and that is also ok. "An article dedicated to negative criticism of a topic is usually discouraged because it tends to be a point-of-view fork, which is generally prohibited by the neutral point-of-view policy. Likewise, the article structure must protect neutrality. Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged." Nubia86 (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Conduct, accountability and public confidence can not contain certain criticisms of police as a concept, such as the total failure of broken windows policing, whose failure is also not mentioned in the article in any way as far as i can tell.
 * It is a politically driven failure of police as a concept that highlights how policing itself can worsen what it was meant to prevent.
 * Or the idea that police does not have to exist or be organized in this way in the modern world, this is part of a neutral point of view understanding of the concept, as it is a significant view on the subject.
 * Why would a single sentence be proportional or sufficient?
 * Isn't the article (or a companion page) not the place where the major counterviews to their existence should be hosted? Bart Terpstra (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "the police abolition movement and Defund the police articles are without those sections and that is also ok", i'm afraid these are not good examples of lacking criticism, as these are not concepts, but contemporary american political movements.
 * their criticism sections would be critique of their political praxis, reception by other political enities and/or the affirmative case for having police in society, which is the status quo, which does not have to explained to a regular reader.
 * however, police abolition or police reform are sufficiently alien that summaries of the major alternatives/views would be new and useful information to a regular reader and help establish neutral pov. Bart Terpstra (talk) 23:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I checked again this whole page, and what I can see is to everything is ok in this page in one NPOV way. I don't see anything affirmative, pov pushing or to something notable is not noted or linked. We here don't make any advocacy or promotion of any thoughts or concepts. The main topic of this page is about police as a constituted body of persons/organization, not a crime, crime prevention or criminology. Also right now there is not any territory with established recognized government in one modern way, to it is without police force and that is current. So any "alternative" or any theory if notable and widely supported and that influenced police forces and governments all around the whole world can get noted in the body of this page, or linked or noted under the see also. This is a general overview article covering the whole world and all countries, not a just part of the world, some states or regions. About different states specifics that topics are usually covered with own pages. Nubia86 (talk) 01:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia promotes and advocates a truthful and "realistic" position on any given subject. (realistic being the sum of all wikipedia policies and the editor culture)
 * the argument that there is no "established recognized government" fails regardless of observable fact because it is not an actual guideline for what should be content and it is a goalpost that excludes the type of content by itself, because a society that does not look like a modern state is unlikely to be recognized as an established society, it might not even have a traditional form of government.
 * "So any "alternative" or any theory if notable and widely supported and that influenced police forces" and governments all around the whole world can get noted in the body of this page, or linked or noted under the see also.".
 * I guess i'll do that. Bart Terpstra (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is one encyclopedia and not a tool for advocacy and promotion of any kind, not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda. That stuff goes on personal blogs. Sometimes people should look more about what Wikipedia is not. There is one whole policy page about that. Some people don't like it, but well, that ones should try with personal blogs or social networks than. Nubia86 (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * exactly, which is why you shouldn't cover police at all.
 * clearly, that is advocacy and promotion and a vehicle for propaganda. (/s)
 * but seriously:
 * you can not distinguish what is to be included and excluded merely because it is a point of view, it has to be filtered through the ideology of Wikipedia, composed of the sum of all rules and procedures and the culture of Wikipedia enforcing those rules, to figure out what is and is not undue advocacy, promotion or propaganda.
 * to say a current article is neutral because it exists and a new point of view is bias because it is new to the article, is a vacuous argument. Bart Terpstra (talk) 17:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * another way to argue wikipedia does do advocacy is to just link Protests against SOPA and PIPA and it's choice to fund or not fund initiatives for free and accurate information and education. Bart Terpstra (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Also to mention to this is not an internet political forum or message board for political or ideological opinions and discussions. That also goes at social networks or blogs. Thank you. Nubia86 (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * politics is merely philosophy people disagree about. Bart Terpstra (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * the editing and managing wikipedia is a political project.
 * per wikipedia:
 * "Politics [..] is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations among individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status."
 * "A variety of methods are deployed in politics, which include promoting one's own political views among people, negotiation with other political subjects, making laws, and exercising internal and external force, including warfare against adversaries."
 * "Politics is exercised on a wide range of social levels, from clans and tribes of traditional societies, through modern local governments, companies and institutions up to sovereign states, to the international level." Bart Terpstra (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If Wikipedia as a whole has an ideology, then interpreting wikipedias policy is a form of ideological opinion making.
 * see also: Hermeneutics Bart Terpstra (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

.

chyper crime
my bank account freez 60.54.9.160 (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)