Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law Enforcement/Archive 9

Police corruption cases
In a conversation on CIX somene pointed out that there is no article on Wikipedia about the Thurso Bay police corruption case which at the time (1957) created a large scandal in the UK. I then noticed that there was nothing about the Detective Sergeant Challoner case from 1963 which again triggered an enquiry. I've added some information about he latter to the article on Donald Rooum the intended victim who exposed him. Is there any interest in writing up such key corruptipon cases?--Peter cohen (talk) 10:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would think so, if the events are as notable as you seem to indicate. If separate articles are a bit daunting, then perhaps you could start by adding subsections to Law enforcement in the United Kingdom. Peet Ern (talk) 23:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Wandsworth Parks Police
I have recently been engaged in some difficulties with a COI user at Wandsworth Parks Police, and I have now put it to an RfC. Any input from the WikiProject would be much appreciated :) ninety:one 14:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This is good I have just read a message from 91 stating he does not involve other editors! Please feel free to join in. I note I am not the only Wikipedian that has difficulties with 91's overbearing manner. As for the term that I am COI user is outrageous, but look for yourselves the discussion page is lengthy and repetitive. Maybe start where 91 joined in, he repeats what has been answered before. Please try and be NPOV and enjoy life.TopCat666 (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * the message, posted on Talk:Wandsworth Parks Police, said: "i will not go around asking individual editors for their opinions, that is selective and counter productive". asking the related WP is the best course of action in addition to an RfC and is advised. furthermore, it is a simple fact that by editing an article relating to your employer you have a conflict of interest. ninety:one 16:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest allegation is poppycock. The simple fact is there are hundreds of edits from persons involved with the articles they are editing. Do not just make these unsubstainable allegations! You have already been warned by administrators on your POV comments about the WPP.TopCat666 (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You simply can't dispute the fact that there is a COI. With regards your latest accusation, a concern was expressed that a few sentences i wrote were POV. I discussed this with the editor and we sorted out the issue. . it was nothing to do with the fact he was an admin, and in any case he is just one ;) (cf. "administrators" above) ninety:one 20:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You admitted you were in the wrong and was POV, I look forward to seeing this again.TopCat666 (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There are no rights or wrongs about POV - by definition it is a largely subjective concept. It was by communicating effectively with Chris that we managed to sort the problem in just 4 posts ;) ninety:one 21:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Even your reply is POV, so you only upset one admin this time. How many do you have to upset in your world, before you accept other people have a right to edit?;) TopCat666 (talk) 09:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The kind of person who has an entire month in which to suggest changes to proposed text, and then comes along and inserts their own commentary unsupported by even a single source? This isn't going anywhere, clearly. ninety:one 21:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

You POV'd me again! TopCat666 (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: Possible name change
Hello

I think the Iraqi Police article should be renamed, due to its proper title actually being the Iraqi Police Service. As well as for example the British Police, does not have an article it is called "Law enforcement in the United Kingdom" just like every other country police service. So I think it would be better if this was renamed "Law enforcement in Iraq", and comments/suggestions/opinions on the matter would be appreciated. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) ☺ 20:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Change name: to LE in IRAQ to better refelct nature of article. Note that the tone of the article is as though there is one agency/service but are the branches of an agency or of the Ministry.  Perhaps some slightly better/more wording might be good at the same time. Peet Ern (talk) 03:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * yeah, it's from when the standard article name was ' Police'. Moved. ninety:one 13:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Failed. The article exists (Law enforcement in Iraq) and some serious work is needed to merge the two. ninety:one 13:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I did not realise LE in Iraq exsisted. Never mind, Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) ☺ 20:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Categorisation standards for law enforcement agency articles
Folks,

The discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law Enforcement/Archive 8 seems to have been archived before it was finished.

I think this is too important to just forget about. It has come up before and will come up again no doubt.

Can I have some feedback on User:Pee Tern/Naming conventions (law enforcement agency categories), and some answers to my questions in Categorising US LEAs above.

Are there any concerns about me putting (an updated) version of my suggested standard above out for wider comment ?

If so, please provide some feedback.

Peet Ern (talk) 03:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we're happy with what you've done, and I for one am awaiting the infobox doublecat fixes! :p I couldn't see any unanswered questions. ninety:one 13:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks ninety:one.

My questions where:
 * LEAs of the US
 * LEAs of STATE
 * State LEAs of STATE
 * County law enforcement agencies of STATE
 * County police departments of STATE
 * Sherrifs' departments of STATE [although in states where the prevailing term is 'Sheriff's Office' i suggest keeping that, like Arizona Category:Sheriff%27s_offices_of_Arizona (and thanks for the spelling there, it was late at night :p)].
 * Probation departments of STATE
 * Specialist police departments of STATE
 * School police departments of STATE
 * Transit police departments of STATE
 * more or less as necessary
 * Municipal police departments of STATE
 * Defunct LEAs of STATE


 * Question: Are sheriffs and probations sub to county or should they be sub to state as they "of STATE" and not "of COUNTY" above? Peet Ern (talk) 23:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * PS: Based on what Necrothesp says above, they should sub to county and of COUNTY. Peet Ern (talk) 23:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Question: Are transit police always for rail systems, (subways, metros, undergrounds, trams), or do they also work on buses? Peet Ern (talk) 01:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

While I know we are encouraged to be bold, on something like this it would be better to get some overt agreement before it is done. I will move the proposal into Wikipedia space, and start to update the template.

Peet Ern (talk) 04:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (from talk page as well)

also
 * Category:Specialist federal law enforcement agencies of the United States is unnecessary because all federal LEAs are specialist.
 * Category:Law enforcement agencies of county name is a unnecessary level of subdivision seeing as very few articles exist in the first place and both municipal and county sheriff/police articles are often AfD'd with only the largest surviving.
 * not sure about probation, but sheriffs are 95% county agencies. rhode island has one sheriff for the whole state (the only one to do so) and there are some agencies that have merged. also, vermont has county-equivalent "independent cities"
 * transit police might well work on buses, but this varies wildly from state to state. some transit police only have jurisdiction within 300m of bus stops, yet some have full statewide jurisdiction! ninety:one 20:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks ninety:one. I am hoping to get the work done next week - I hope . . . Peet Ern (talk) 03:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability standards for law enforcement agencies
Folks,

The notability of articles about law enforcement agencies, and their alleged lack of, meaning potential deletion of your favorite national, provincial, specialist, or local LEA's article, has generated much discussion over time. ..

Have your say at Wikipedia talk:Notability (law enforcement agencies).

I would like to do a version 2 of Notability (law enforcement agencies) soon, incorporating the comments provided to date, so the more comments I can include now the better.

Peet Ern (talk) 03:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

FAR listing
Law has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Vision Thing -- 18:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow
I see I am going to have to do a lot of catching up when I get reliable internet access again. SGGH speak! 22:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Peet Ern's discussion has been closed and archived
Folks,

All the active issues raised in Peet Ern's discussion have been resolved. I have archived the discussion.

I thought it would take me 3 months, but it took 6. C'est la vie!

Peet Ern (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit war
There is a dispute between two editors here and although I have an opinion, I have protected the page due to this and cannot mediate. Neither party seems willing to follow a third opinion and I'd be glad for some outside input. Thanks. -- Rodhull andemu  19:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I am one of those involved editors, against the inclusion of the information. I am against it for the following:


 * It is a very long protracted, drawn out statement, in the lead of the article.
 * Survives on few references.
 * Brings a political agenda to the article, which is not desired.
 * Has manual of style problems.

Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) ☺ 19:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I think it's irrelevant to the article. The gentlemen quoted were not talking about the police, but about general philosophical principles, so the quotes are effectively being synthesised to promote a particular point of view, which is Original Research and not acceptable on Wikipedia. It's also highly POV and assumes that the gentlemen quoted were correct - a "they said this so it must be true" presentation, which is academically insupportable. So, I agree with PMJ - there is no real place for this section in the article, and in any case certainly not in the intro. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've put a brief comment ont the page itself, basical stating that I don't believe the content suitable for the lead, but if its detail and angle are properly handled it may have a place in a suitable section of the article. SGGH speak! 14:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys, appreciate your support. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) ☺ 16:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Law enforcement
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Proofreading: Cuerpo Nacional de Policía (Spain)
Hi. I'm new to Wikipedia I'm not sure where to direct this query, although it seems not too distant from this page's area of work. On reading the Cuerpo Nacional de Policía (Spain) page, it appears to need proofreading, as do some of the other pages related to Spanish police forces, listed here, Law enforcement in Spain. They sound very "translated", and in some cases the English is wrong (although I'm not sure whether this is because of an official government translation, or that of a Wikipedia contributor). Could someone please direct this query to where it is most appropriate? 81.184.177.137 (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅, but needs some references. ninety:one 20:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Featured sound
Hi, dropping by with some good news that relates to your project: a prohibition-era drinking song was recently promoted to featured sound. Since the prohibition article falls within your project's scope, thought you might enjoy the news. Best, Durova Charge! 18:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Appropriateness of "fallen officer" sections
I've seen these added to a few articles I watch, including Oregon Department of Corrections (ODC) and Multnomah County Sheriff's Office. Most of them seem to have been added to the U.S. state police articles so far. And though I have the utmost respect for the memories of these men and women, I have to wonder if these lists are appropriate for an encyclopedia. The ones I've seen include multiple external links, which goes against our external links and embedded lists guidelines. If the consensus is that these sections are appropriate, it would be best to remove the embedded titled links and instead use the external links as references, with wikilinks where appropriate, such as for the ODC officers Michael Francke and Harry Minto, who are notable on their own. If this has been discussed before, please direct me to the appropriate archive. Thanks! Katr67 (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it is looked at in the scope section, but if I remember correctly concensus is that being killed in the line of duty, while tragic, is not enough for a wikipedia article, and the officer has to be notable for other reasons also. Generally, those killed in notable events are mentioned on the article for that event and redirected there. Wikipedia is not a memorial, and lists of fallen officers should be removed, and perhaps an external link to that force's honour roll supplied in the external links section. Officers whose deaths are notable due to the event should be mentioned in the prose for that force with a for more details see... above the relevant section. Hope that helps. SGGH speak! 23:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was thinking that if the odmp.com link was deemed appropriate, that maybe a project-vetted template, along the lines of findagrave might be appropriate for the el section. Katr67 (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's an excellent idea, can you set that up? I'm not sure how to work those things... SGGH speak! 00:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, and external title links are a no no, refs are best, as you stated yourself. SGGH speak! 00:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I experienced a similar discussion when I created List of fallen Canadian correctional workers. Simple lists are not appropriate, but I believe that lists with details can be of encyclopedic interest. Information about how (as well as how often) peace officers lose their lives in the line of duty can dramatically illustrate the dangers of the job. Take a look at my article and give me some feedback. My hope is that perhaps other stand-alone lists with expanded details can be created. Please also consider that the List of fallen Canadian correctional workers article is a work in progress. More sources and details are being added as my schedule permits. JeffJ (talk) 03:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have made several of these sections in different articles. As I read the Wikipedia rules I have not violated any prohibitions.  If a guide states that something should not generally be done, it is not prohibited.  I think that these sections add somehting to the articles (obviously, or I would not have added them).  Anyone accessing these articles generally wants to know about the agency, and this includes the officers that have died in the line of duty.  I have not added any exceptionally long ones - like NYPD or LAPD would have, so I don't think they detract from the article.  I realize that these officers do not merit an article devoted to them simply for dying, but this is not an article.  This is an example of what we're talking about:

Fallen officers
Since the establishment of the Clackamas County Sheriff's Office, 3 officers have died in the line of duty.


 * I do hope that this is not deemed inappropriate, but I will abide by a decision of the members of the project. SGT141 (talk) 03:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have removed my addition of the external links on each specific officer pursuant WP:EL on Portland Police, and I have also done so on Multnomah County Sheriff's office. I would like to note that I do feel that the information it provides is relevant to the agency, maybe it just does not needs its own heading. It could be merged in with the history sections, thoughts? Tiptoety  talk 03:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Converting the excessively externally linked tables into prose would be perfectly acceptable. Katr67 (talk) 05:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly neutral to these sections, but I do think that only officers who have been murdered in the line of duty should be included. Dying in a car crash or of a heart attack while on duty is tragic, but no more notable than anyone else dying in a car crash or of a heart attack. External bluelinks are definitely out, but footnote links are fine. Some of the language also needs to be changed. It can be far too flowery and pompous for an encyclopaedia. Even the term "fallen" should be changed. Fallen off what? "The fallen" is a term commonly used on memorials, but not in encyclopaedias. "Officers murdered in the line of duty" is better. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What if they were titled "in the line of duty"? If "line of duty" means any action which an officer is obligated or authorized to carry out, or for which the officer is compensated by the public agency he or she serves, then "killed in the line of duty" refers to an officer who has died as a direct and proximate result of a personal injury sustained in the line of duty. This would include officers who, while in an off-duty capacity, act in response to a law violation, or are driving to or from work. What if the officer died of a heart attack while chasing a suspect? Or was involved in a fatal traffic accident while in pursuit? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What's the difference between that and being killed while serving your country during a war? Yet I certainly don't want to see a list of every soldier killed in wartime on Wikipedia. It's just too long and too unencyclopaedic. And why should a police officer killed in a car crash while driving home from work be any more notable than an office worker killed in a car crash driving home from work? Or an officer killed in a crash while in pursuit be any more notable than a lorry driver killed in a crash while doing his job? No, stick to officers who were actually murdered in the line of duty, not just killed in the line of duty. And "fallen in the line of duty" is just too flowery and sentimental for an encyclopaedia - it belongs on a memorial. I'm a police officer, incidentally, so there's no hint of anti-police sentiment here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a difference; I just hope I can articulate it. Casualties in war are expected, but dying in the line of duty as a peace officer is less common and usually a result of an isolated incident. I would include any officer who died on duty, even if it was of natural causes, but not off-duty unless it was work-related (i.e., stalked and killed off duty because of their role as a peace officer). I'll point again to the article List of fallen Canadian correctional workers, not so much as how it should be done, but how I tried to create an encyclopaedic entry. I've been adding anecdotes to the article to illustrate how some of the officers died, and have tried to select a cross-section of various circumstances. I think articles such as these offer the reader a greater insight into the perils of working as a peace officer. As for the use of "fallen", I chose the term because not all officers were killed or murdered, and "fallen" seemed less sensational while still conveying a sense of tragedy. JeffJ (talk) 12:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree. Being murdered is notable, but dying otherwise is no more notable than anyone else dying. Take two people who die of a heart attack while at work: why should the police office be notable but the teacher not notable? That makes absolutely no sense. It also puts police officers on a pedestal. Soldiers don't join the Army to die, so it's a bit blasé to say "Oh well, you expect casualties in war so their deaths aren't notable". As to your article giving "the reader a greater insight into the perils of working as a peace officer" - that's not why Wikipedia exists. It's an encyclopaedia. Incidentally, is "died" not less sensational than "fallen"? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The word "died" is unambiguous and preferred over "passed away" and other euphemisms used in other Wikipedia articles. There's a guideline about that, I believe. Katr67 (talk) 14:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A few points to address here... First, I did not mean to sound blase about soldiers dying. I meant that high casualty rates are all too common and usually a very large number is listed instead of individual names. Lists of peace officers who have died in the line of duty are much shorter as the occurrence is significantly less often. As for deaths on duty by natural causes; I would include the name on the raw list, but not offer the story as part of the article. I understand why some would be inclined to stick with those who were "killed", but we enter into a grey area that has been an issue with so many peace officer memorial organizations. If a prisoner attacks a peace officer and in the ensuing struggle the officer has a fatal heart attack, the prisoner would be found guilty of murder even though the officer died of "natural causes". At least, in Canada. So I would include in the list anyone who has been included on a memorial, but limit detailed entries to the "notable" or representational. Having said that, I also see the contention around including someone who had an unprovoked heart attack/stroke/etc. while on duty. Like if the officer simply died at their desk. Then we get into the realm of why are they special as compared to any other worker who dies at their desk. Bottom line is that I essentially agree with many of the arguments here, but would like to see this kind of information being made available. JeffJ (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I myself just stand by the idea that Wikipedia is not a memorial, and officers lost on duty are only included if their deaths (or lives) were notable for other reasons. SGGH speak! 14:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In principle, I agree. But I also think that information on how many of these peace officers were killed can be very illustrative about the jobs they do and the inherent hazards. I think lists also provide a better encyclopedic reference than say just a total number. I like to think that if someone is researching the field of law enforcement, more than statistics are necessary to gain a perspective, particularly if they wish to compare causes of death within a jurisdiction or compare several jurisdictions. I suppose we could create a master article listing the number of on-duty deaths by jurisdiction, with breakdowns of causes, etc. but it would kind of dry the subject out for the average person (and for most officers for that matter). So, I agree that it's not a memorial. And I see how it could be putting LEO's on a pedestal. So should we create lists of "notable" deaths? Clearly, we need something, but "notability" can be such a contentious issue. Sigh. JeffJ (talk) 16:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review of List of fallen Canadian correctional workers
In light of the discussions in the preceding section, I thought that this would be a good opportunity to request a peer review of my entry. Be assured that I am not trying to bolster my opinions through positive reviews; I really do want to get honest feedback simply for the sake of the article. If at some point consensus dictates that this List is not appropriate (per recent discussions) then I will abide by that consensus. My goal here is to try to maintain an article that best represents its genre and, if appropriate, sets an example for future similar articles. I'm a humble guy, folks. JeffJ (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

State law enforcement agencies of the United States
What is a "state law enforcement agency"? I've been categorising any agency whose officers have statewide powers as one, but editors at Port of Portland Police Department (Oregon) disagree, wisely pointing out that they are nothing to do with the state government and do not patrol statewide. So a state law enforcement agency is either What do you think? ninety:one 18:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * one with legal powers statewide, regardless of area of responsibility
 * one (with legal powers state wide) which is part of the state government and patrols statewide
 * I replied in terms of the Oregon article on the article's talk page. Feel free to have a larger discussion about Category:State law enforcement agencies of the United States here on this page, as I can't speak to those (and to keep the discussion from being fragmented), except to say I think that the category refers to official state agencies of U.S. states vs. local agencies with statewide jurisdiction. Katr67 (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. State law enforcement agencies refers only to those agencies which answer to the state government, not those which merely operate within the state. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct, every Law Enforcement agency has statewide power, but that does not mean they patrol or respond to calls for service statewide. Only Law Enforcement agencies that are operated by the State should be placed in that cat. Tiptoety  talk 22:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll go and check that now. ninety:one 19:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

✅ checked all state LEA cats and removed any not part of the state government. ninety:one 19:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Law enforcement agency - Speciality jurisdictions
Colleagues,

The template now allows up to 6 speciality jurisdictions to be specified, 'speciality1',. ., 'speciality6'. The updated template is backwards compatible with the now deprecated parameters, 'restriction' and 'speciality', which are both treated the same as 'speciality1', so no articles need updating.

I have also made some progress in implementing the project's law enforcement agency categorisation scheme. The template should now subcategorise any law enforcement agency (or unit) related to education institutions, 'primary', 'secondary', 'tertiary', 'nontertiary', according to the project's standard. These all have the same description, but they will categorise differently.

I chose the terms 'primary', 'secondary', 'tertiary', 'nontertiary' because they appear to be the most world view consistent, rather than school, college, etc.

If there are any unexpected automatic categorisations, please check both, the article itself for explicit categorisations (which should be removed if they are standardised ones), and that the relevant (sub)categories have been properly created according to the standard first. If the template cannot find an expected category, it will try to go up the category tree until it finds one.

If there are any issues, please post them at Template talk:Infobox Law enforcement agency.

There have also been some changes to the HQ location map functionality, but this is not used much at all at the moment.

While I will be away from easy Internet access for about 11 days, I will try and check in every couple of days.

Peet Ern (talk) 03:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

UK law enforcement agency categories
A quick note to draw your attention to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (law enforcement agency categories). We're setting out the UK LEA category guidelines there, and in particular whether to withdraw the "Police forces" categories and just use "Law enforcement agency" categories. Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! ninety:one 20:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

new Indian line-of-duty articles
Guys, I know it's been a while since I've been around here. I want to ask you about Ashok Kamte, Hemant Karkare and Vijay Salaskar. In my view they do not meet notability except for line-of-duty, a debate that perennially rages here on the 'pedia. Some of the 911 officers have articles, some don't. Some of the Virginia Tech victims have articles, some don't. Where is the line as WPLE sees it, in this instance? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think our policy was hashed out as "if the event of his death is significant, (i.e. it was a significant attack, crime, bombing etc.) but that is the only think in his life that is significant enough for a wiki article, then it should be mentioned only on the article for that attack unless there is too much in that article, on which case WP:SIZE would dictate a seperate article for the officer. If there is more to the officer's life than he death which is significant enough for wikipedia, then an article on him or her alone is suitable. SGGH speak! 13:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There contrubution to service was excellent! There were one of the Finest officers in Mumbai Police. I have much info about them but problem is that i cant citations/refrences because that info is mot on web. I have collected their info from other officers.-- Suyog talk to me!  07:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * While mos tof us here are police officers ourselves and sympathise, the fact that they lost their lives tragically doesn't normally stand by itself as enough to warrant a wikipedia article. Their memory would be far better served at a Wall of Honour site or something similar. --SGGH speak! 23:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Mumbai Police in Operation Black Tornado
Hello all Mumbai police did a brave job during 26/11 attack. I dont know how to corporate this info in Mumbai Police Artice can any one help me?-- Suyog talk to me!  07:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Images of epaulettes has been deleted
Just thought I'd let everyone know, that the epaulettes displaying ranks have been deleted. Making this template without any images. So if anyone can find a site that has them and it is not Copyrighted, now is the time to upload. Thanks, Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) ☺ 15:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What was the rationale for the deletion? Could a simple graphic be used to illustrate each rank? Pips, bars, chevrons, etc... --JeffJ (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The rationale was "I11: Claimed license from copyright holder not verified", but yes I'm sure it could easily get by with just graphic images. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) ☺ 08:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

FBI article in trouble ?
Folks,

Can some who knows a bit about the FBI please have look at Federal Bureau of Investigation. It seems to be in spot of bother, for example a GA class article with a an advert tag on it!

Also, can someone who knows a bit about the FBI review this edit by an IP of the FBI template.

Peet Ern (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. ninety:one 22:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Peet Ern (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi there
Hi, I am new. Can I join you as well? Blastoise186 (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, you are very welcome to join. Don't forget to sign up on the members page. SGGH speak! 22:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)