Talk:Police Information & Talk:Police Links at HealthHaven.com

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Police article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1

Police was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 17, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
November 20, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed
Current Status: Former good article nominee

Wikipedia for Schools

Police is included in the Wikipedia for Schools, see Police at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.

WikiProject Law Enforcement

(Rated B-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject. Please Join, Create, and Assess. Remember, the project aims for no vandalism and no conflict, if an article needs attention regarding vandalism or breaches of wikiquette, please add it to the article watch list.

B

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

More information:

	This article is being watched due to vandalism, edit wars or poor wikiquette.

WikiProject Law

(Rated B-Class)

Law portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.

B

This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives
1

1 Introduction : function of police
2 Justifying the word "hierarchical" before the word "order"
- 2.1 Unanswered argument for the proposal of "hierarchical order"
3 A better sentence
4 Overview section (old comment)
5 Threats to the establishment
6 Are encyclopedia definitions prescriptive or descriptive?
7 Why reiterate "reduce civil disorder" instead of protection of property?
8 Police function: platitudes vs. evidence
9 Conservative proposal
10 image:Politiabmw1.jpg
11 Overview section

[edit] Introduction : function of police

I changed "maintain a hierarchical order" to simply "maintain order" because the former phrase seems to allude to ideas about alternative kinds of order, e.g. hierarchical versus non-hierarchical, that were not explained either in this article or in the articles on hierarchy or on police power, or in the stub article on natural order. Lacking that kind of background explanation, I think a reference to maintaining hierarchical order is likely to be more confusing than helpful.CharlesHBennett (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, "order" is extremely vague--with multiple possible interpretations, and gets even less treatment in the article. 69.228.251.134 (talk) 00:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Justifying the word "hierarchical" before the word "order"

An editor has requested a third opinion regarding a dispute about this page.
This template is only a talk page banner - the dispute must be listed at Wikipedia:Third opinion for editors to respond.

The dictionary http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/order shows 56 definitions/uses of the word "order". FIFTY-SIX! That's why I think that, in the interest of clarity, one should specify just exactly what kind of order one is referring to. Is it, say, the obsequious "harmonious arrangement" (number 5)?. Are we meaning to define the police as people who bring about harmony? Or is it, say, number 4?:

the disposition of things following one after another, as in space or time; succession or sequence: The names were listed in alphabetical order.

Not quite. The word refers to definition number 9, in which the sentence "A police officer was there to maintain order" is offered as an example with the following root definition:

conformity or obedience to law or established authority...

The fundamental difference between definition number 4 and 9 in defining police function is that "the disposition of things following one after another" -- what we could call the structure/order of our society -- exists in the context of "obedience to...established authority" i.e. *hierarchical* order.

The dictionary defines hierarchy http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hierarchy as "any system of persons or things ranked one above another." Now, without even mentioning police power over citizens, (or economic power e.g. assuming the police-protected property of Fortune 500 owners don't rank them above a beggar), the fact is that the aforementioned "established authority" can't be denied. Unless you think that the president of the US doesn't have more power than a senator or a governor, which has more than a mayor, which has more than a Captain, which has more than a police officer etc, you can't deny we're talking about a "hierarchical" order. This is a straight-up reading of the dictionary. It's neither "vandalism" nor "marxism" as Rodhullandemu has declared. The purpose or consequence of omitting the concisely descriptive word "hierarchical" seems clear:

Magnifying ambiguity to lead readers into a different definition of the word, or into an image of the police as some sort of maintainers of a neutral or "harmonious" state of affairs. This leads readers *away* from definition number 9, which describes *precisely* the kind of order we need to specify. Now, if you still really hate the word "hierarchical", I think that can be remedied by simply substituting it for the aforementioned dictionary definition:

conformity or obedience to law or established authority...

69.228.251.134 (talk) 06:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Leaving aside the original Greek definition of hierarchy as "government by priests", what we are talking about is "an organisation with grades or classes ranked one above the other". The word "order" in the lead is clearly intended to refer to "social order" as opposed to "disorder", rather than any ordering within a hierarchy. That's why use of "hierarchical" in this context is simply wrong, and it should go. And it is considered rude to change wording back to one's preferred version before consensus has been reached. Rodhull andemu 09:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You say: "The word 'order' in the lead is clearly intended to refer to "social order" as opposed to "disorder", rather than any ordering within a hierarchy."

Exactly!!! Which is precisely why it adheres more closely to definition number 4 (or even 5), than number 9 ("obedience to...established authority.")--the one meant to describe order vis a vis police function (as the dictionary implies, we should not equate lack of "disorder" with "obedience to...established authority.") 69.228.251.134 (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. When we use the phrase "law and order", we mean order in the sense of "public order", which is a well-defined term - see, for example, Lord Scarman in "The Red Lion Square Disorders of 15 June 1974" (Cmnd. 5019}: "Amongst our fundamental human rights there are, without doubt, the rights of peaceful assembly and public protest and the right to public order and tranquility" - as a way of expressing maintenance of the peace. I've never seen a writer refer to it as if it meant a social hierarchy, and "hierarchical" in that context is meaningless, unless you think there are degrees of disorder (which there actually are, in law, but that's irrelevant). Perhaps to avoid looking stupid we should say

"The police is a service consisting of people empowered to enforce the law and maintain public order through the legitimized use of force."

and forget about "hierarchical" altogether. It's a distraction. Rodhull andemu 16:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You say "...[W]e use the phrase "law and order"... as a way of expressing maintenance of the peace."

I know you do, and that, once again, is my point. According to the dictionary, "peace" in this context is "freedom from civil disorder". This is precisely why it adheres more closely to definition number 4 (some neutral "disposition of things") or 5 ("harmony"), than number 9 ("obedience to...established authority.")--the one *the dictionary itself* describes as order vis a vis police function. As I already said, the dictionary implies we should not equate lack of "disorder" with "obedience to...established authority". You keep making the mistake of equating them. And I see you have a further ax to grind with your suggestion that we substitute the word "hierarchical" with "public" which wikipedia itself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_force defines as "serving the public interests" (a rather ideological assumption, equating "obedience to...established authority" with "the public interest"). So, no, "hierarchical" is not a distraction. Rather it's a dictionary-backed solution to the distracting and misleading ambiguity of the word "order"--which as I said has 56 meanings, some of which confuse and mislead readers. 69.228.251.134 (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I wish you'd stop this slavish reliance on what dictionaries say; they are descriptive, not prescriptive, of usage. In the case of this article, and its universe of discourse, "order" has a well-defined meaning, which is "public order"- that term is related to, but not dependent upon, "obedience to...established authority". Sure, the law prescribes remedies for breach of public order, ranging from ASBOs and binding over to imprisonment, and it is largely a role of the police to enforce the law in relation thereto, but that in no way suggests to me that the "order" referred to is in any way "hierarchical" in that its strata could be evaluated or enumerated. Dictionary-based solutions are rarely apposite to terms of art. Rodhull andemu 17:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I am glad you've openly admitted your belief that the current use of the word "order" in the article is "well-defined" and leads readers toward the notion of a "public order" -- since, as I said, wikipedia itself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_force defines this "public order" as "serving the public interests". Unfortunately, if you are right, all this would indicate is that rather than eliciting confusion with the aformentioned 56 definitions/uses of the word "order", the text leads readers toward an ideological interpretation of the word i.e. equating "obedience to...established authority" with "the public interest". As for saying that the "order" the police maintain is not "in any way 'hierarchical' in that "its strata could be evaluated or enumerated", I wonder if you bother to read my posts. I will repeat what I said earlier in the hope that this time you'll detect the "strata [herein] evaluated or enumerated":

'The dictionary defines hierarchy http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hierarchy as "any system of persons or things ranked one above another." Now, without even mentioning police power over citizens, (or economic power e.g. assuming the police-protected property of Fortune 500 owners don't rank them above a beggar), the fact is that the aforementioned "established authority" can't be denied. Unless you think that the president of the US doesn't have more power than a senator or a governor, which has more than a mayor, which has more than a Captain, which has more than a police officer etc, you can't deny we're talking about a "hierarchical" order.'

Astonishingly, you claim that this hierarchy that the police help maintain is neither a hierarchy, nor "dependent upon 'obedience to...established authority'". I don't know which world you live in. 69.228.251.134 (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. Your discussion above is an argument about how police powers are apparently exercised selectively in order to protect the strata of a (hierarchical) society from each other. That is an exercise in political philosophy, and not the avowed purpose of policing; it certainly does not belong in the lead, but is probably addressed elsewhere. Meanwhile, the world in which I live, and in which I qualified in both law and criminology, is the one in which words may be used to convey meanings intended by their authors, not some Humpty Dumpty world in which they are used for some ulterior purpose. I'd remind you that police officers were at one time called "peace officers", and as long ago as 1316 the primary role of local constables was the "preservation of the Queen's Peace". This is the derivation of "order", as in "public order", and any later political analysis in relation to class- or structure-based societies is a different use of the word "order". Meanwhile, since you don't seem to be getting this distinction, I'm going to ask for a third opinion. Rodhull andemu 18:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

As you can see in the text, and in the dictionary definitions I presented, I contend that the "ulterior purpose" in relation to the word "order" belongs to you, not me. Offering the fact that at some point totalitarian state authorities (monarchies) labeled "police officers" as "peace officers" to legitimize their function, actually supports my argument and exposes your ideological framework. I mean, your admission that the meaning you want to attach to "order" ("as in 'public order'") comes from this totalitarian system-- from this "preservation of the Queen's Peace" proves beyond any doubt that you can't detect the extremely political and ideological nature of your own statements. I mean, let's take you at your word. Let's say that we both went back to 1316--the year you're using to bolster your case. Let's say I contended that the main role of the police was maintaining a hierarchical order. And let's say that you said that I was wrong, and that the police ("peace officers") were mainly maintaining a peaceful order in the public's interest. Which statement would have more accuracy? Which would have an "ulterior purpose"? 69.228.251.134 (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Your comments merely expose your ulterior purpose. But let's leave it to a wider audience, shall we? Rodhull andemu 18:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Rodhullandemu. In one of the most unnecessary pieces of wikilawyering I've seen, the IP seems to have picked up a dictionary and scrawled 'the book of all that is right' on the cover of it, and then proceeded to read the parts of it that they want to through Marx-tinted spectacles. I'd just like to pick them up on the last comment, which was the worst of the lot: 'police officers' were not labeled as 'peace officers' in 1361, rather 'peace officers' were labeled as 'police officers' sometime in the late 19th century. Indeed, the word 'police' was not even commonly used until the advent of professional police forces in the 1800s. Put Das Kapital down and get off the Reichstag. ninety:one 19:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Arguing about dictionary definitions is clearly getting nowhere. Can I suggest that the meaning be clarified by the use of a link? Two examples would be.

...to enforce the law and maintain social order through the legitimized use of force.
...to enforce the law and reduce civil disorder through the legitimized use of force.

Of these, I prefer number two. If you read the two articles, civil disorder relates more directly to what police do.

Yaris678 (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec with Yaris678) Second Third Opinion agree with Rodhullandemu and Ninetyone. Adding the word "hierarchical" would assert that that the police exist to preserve some sort of class system; a highly non-neutral addition to the article. Mildly Mad^T_C 20:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

What's amazing about the rabid ideological fanaticism of these "third opinions" is that the very suggestion that the police maintain a hierarchical order--the very suggestion that we follow the dictionary's definition, elicits slurs such as "marxist" "Put Das Kapital down" etc. As if the dictionary was marxist, or as if marxism was the only philosophy that detects hierarchy. Would it be proper for anyone to say something like "take off your statist and capitalist blinders off" "put your corporate propaganda down"? Should such statements be considered valid "third opinions"? Rodhullandemu, Ninetyone, Yaris678 and MildlyMad --you all believe the police do not maintain a hierarchical order. Yet you have ALL REFUSED to respond to a statement I made:

'The dictionary defines hierarchy http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hierarchy as "any system of persons or things ranked one above another." Now, without even mentioning police power over citizens, (or economic power e.g. assuming the police-protected property of Fortune 500 owners don't rank them above a beggar), the fact is that the aforementioned "established authority" can't be denied. Unless you think that the president of the US doesn't have more power than a senator or a governor, which has more than a mayor, which has more than a Captain, which has more than a police officer etc, you can't deny we're talking about a "hierarchical" order.'

Now, please stop the lazy and cowardly insults. Find the courage to respond to this 69.228.251.134 (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, you've had your third opinion, and consensus is against you; if you don't accept it, you should open a Request for Comment, and that's all you can do here. Rodhull andemu 21:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Unanswered argument for the proposal of "hierarchical order"

Rodhullandemu, Ninetyone, Yaris678 and MildlyMad --you all believe the police do not maintain a hierarchical order. Yet you have ALL REFUSED to respond to a statement I made:

'The dictionary defines hierarchy http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hierarchy as "any system of persons or things ranked one above another." Now, without even mentioning police power over citizens, (or economic power e.g. assuming the police-protected property of Fortune 500 owners don't rank them above a beggar), the fact is that the aforementioned "established authority" can't be denied. Unless you think that the president of the US doesn't have more power than a senator or a governor, which has more than a mayor, which has more than a Captain, which has more than a police officer etc, you can't deny we're talking about a "hierarchical" order.'

Do you not believe that this arrangement has hierarchical properties? And if you claim to not be able to look at social factors, why do you then insist on adding words that emphasize "social peace" or "public interest" etc? 69.228.251.134 (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTFORUM. Rodhull andemu 21:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu, Please read it closely WP:NOTFORUM. It fits you like a glove. And of course, you still refuse to respond. You are intelligent enough to know you can't respond to the statement I made. So you keep using dirty, hypocritically distracting tricks. 69.228.251.134 (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what this has to do with the article any more. Nobody can dispute definition of "hierarchy," and we mostly agree that a "hierarchy" (social order) exists in society. What more do you want? Mildly Mad^T_C 21:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

God, this is so frustrating. Have you read anything that was written? Just like I told Rodhullandemu, the dictionary implies we should not equate social order or lack of "disorder" with "obedience to...established authority"--the definition of police order. You equate social order with hierarchy and this does not stand up to scrutiny. Now, if you do agree, as you say, that a hierarchical order exists in our society (as, say, I describe in the first post of this section), what role do the police play in maintaining said social order? Please answer.69.228.251.134 (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did read everything (including the same argument you copied and pasted twice), thanks for asking. "Order" as used in the first sentence of the article refers to the opposite of Civil disorder, rather than a Social order, as you claim. Mildly Mad^T_C 21:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

the "social order" does seem more of a consensus edit. 69.228.251.134 (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Where is this mythical consensus? I don't see it, and I dispute such a consensus exists. This is just your words again. Rodhull andemu 22:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

So far we have 2 people in favour of civil disorder (myself and Mildly Mad) and one person in favour of social order (the ISP). Yaris678 (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

... and myself in favour of civil disorder, since that's what I've been arguing. Consensus would appear to be clear thus far, then. Rodhull andemu 23:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of "social order". I said it was more of a consensus edit. I favor "hierarchical order", fow which I've provided irrefutable evidence. If society progresses, anybody who looks back at people who deny the police maintained a hierarchical order will laugh. You guys are so so cowardly (notice no one has DARED respond to the original post), and so ideological, I'm simply not going to continue wasting my time. Have it your way--push the notion we live in a classless society without hierarchy, where cops just maintain a harmonious "peace" and "public interest". Go kiss the feet of your government and wall street "equals". Go join your Stalinist counterparts in the whitewashing of history. This article is a joke thanks to you. 69.228.251.134 (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

And this thread is now an extremely amusing example of how not to win an argument, thanks to you. So much so, that I think that this section is worthy of inclusion in WP:LAME. Rodhull andemu 00:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, we're clearly all sheeple, and IP134 is the only one that knows WP:The Truth. Mildly Mad^T_C 05:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A better sentence

The currently extant statement is: The police is a service consisting of people empowered to enforce the law and maintain order through the legitimized use of force. Firstly (with no flippancy intended) there is a redundant repetition of force. To enforce the law implies "through the legitimized use of force". Secondly, there is an awkwardness about giving the plural noun "police" a singular complement, viz. "service". I would therefore offer for discussion a sounder construction:-- "A police body (or service or force) is one authorized to ensure compliance with and, if necessary, to enforce laws and regulations governing criminal and other prohibited behaviours". My sentence also has the merit of excluding the quasi-political non-NPOV content of some earlier proposals. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 11:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to start another argument about dictionary definitions, but it might help if you looked up wikt:enforce in wiktionary. We are clearly using meaning 4:

4. To keep up, impose or bring into effect something, not necessarily by force.

Interestingly, if you look up enforce in wikipedia, you come to the page on Police!

If there is a problem with the current sentence, it is that it looks like the use of force is all they do. Perhaps something like:

The police is a service consisting of people empowered to enforce the law and reduce civil disorder. Their powers include the legitimized use of force.

I know what you mean about the police being plural, but I also know this is a convention often not followed. If we want to follow the convention, perhaps the simplest way would be to drop the use of service altogether. i.e.

The police are people empowered to enforce the law and reduce civil disorder. Their powers include the legitimized use of force.

Yaris678 (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

There can be no objection to your last sentence, which is less wordy and therefore better than mine for our purposes. I especially endorse the term "civil", at a time when (civilian) police like to differentiate themselves from 'civilians' (at least in my neck of the woods). Military police operate under a military code and are, of course, entitled to call any non-military folk civilians, our police included. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Overview section (old comment)

I have a number of criticisms of the Overview section.

The "milestones" at the beginning seem to be in the wrong place. Surely this is part of the History section.
Statement about how the police in the 18th and 19th century "developed in the context of maintaining the class system". What does this mean? Was that their purpose? Was that their effect? The phrase is so woolly, "developed in the context" could mean that "maintaining the class system" was something they were opposing. It would help if someone who had access to the cited reference could check what is actually said.
The stuff about the different words for police could be put in a section called Terminology, along with the bit about the etymology of the term, currently in the lead.
Are garda and militsiya really alternative names for police? Or are they just words for police in other languages (Irish and Russian)?

Yaris678 (talk) 12:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Threats to the establishment

An IP wants to state that police are empowered to reduce threats to the establishment. This seems like a particular point of view to me, rather than a statement of fact. If you think otherwise, please explain yourself here. Yaris678 (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

In one sense, it's a truism--a threat to 'civil order' is a threat to the establishment, so why add a redundant statement? The IP editor, however, seems to be putting a viewpoint (aka POV)--that protection of 'the establishment' (which seems not to include him/her) is reprehensible and thus needs to be aired in Wikipedia. OK, I can relate to the anti-cop sentiment, but Wikipedia is NOT the place for 'letters to the editor'. Also, this article is about police generally, not just the police of a particular country or town. I would think that, eg, military police do quite a different job from protecting 'the establishment'. They might be doing their work halfway across the world from the bureaucrats who set them up. There's no doubt it's a minority POV and I've again reverted it as such (and will continue to do so unless the IP editor puts up a good argument and obtains something like consensus). Cheers Bjenks (talk) 10:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Bjenks, you say "in one sense, it's a truism--a threat to 'civil order' is a threat to the establishment, so why add a redundant statement?"

It's not redundant. That's why it said: "...reduce civil disorder or OTHER threats to the establishment". Did you miss the word "other"? Also, you imply that military police "reduce civil disorder" but do not protect the establishment. This sentence is the only argument you offer:

"They might be doing their work halfway across the world from the bureaucrats who set them up."

Even if this were true, do you think this constitutes evidence for your argument?

Also, since the military engages in war, whose motivations have been varied throughout history (material, territorial, aggressive etc -- often causing a good deal of destruction, chaos and disorder) the notion that they "reduce civil disorder" seems very POV--especially since their actions were often on behalf of the establishment they worked for. In fact, they acted not just to "reduce threats" to their existing interests (i.e. defensively) but often to pursue & expand their prospective interests. 69.228.251.134 (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a talk page for discussing improvements to this article. It is NOT a chatroom for discussing the political implications of policing, particularly when other articles exist for that purpose, and are well-sourced; see the "See also" section. This article is a functional and historical description of what "Police" means. It should not be hijacked to make a point for which it is not intended. "Political" arguments do not belong here, and if you persist in pursuing your own agenda here, not only will I block you for a lengthy period, but will defend my adminship againt your single-minded misunderstanding of what an encyclopedia, and this article, is meant to be. In short, you've significantly failed so far to have your position accepted, and I really suggest you start your own blog, or join an existing one, to further your position. I'll just remind you that when there was a content conflict recently and I sought a third opinion, outside opinion was overwhelmingly against you. I'm disappointed that you are not getting the message that things need to be reliably sourced here, and if you can't get a hold of that, please take it somewhere else. Thanks. Rodhull andemu 00:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

And for fuck's sake, please use the Preview button to avoid Edit Conflicts. We don't have time for this shit. Rodhull andemu 00:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No Rodhullandemu, as I've proven in my posts, it is your definitions of the police which are political in the extreme, and I'm here to correct your outrageous biases and shocking ignorance. Please stop imposing your ideological agenda. That kind of garbage doesn't belong here. If you continue with your rabid disruptions, I will be the one to block you for a lengthy period. I also suggest that you start your own blog--just take your propaganda somewhere away from here. You're making this article into an utter joke. To quote you: "we don't have time for this shit". 69.228.251.134 (talk) 08:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Shut up already. You can't block Rodhull, but he can block you. Consensus is clearly against you. Go rant somewhere else (like a blog). Griffinofwales (talk) 14:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No, YOU "shut up already". The only "consensus" here is the one of your gang -- which has hijacked this article to whitewash police actions-- blocking anyone who counters this disgusting propaganda. Are you guys getting paid by some police department to this? If I find out you have, I'll make sure all of you are banned from wikipedia forever. 69.228.251.134 (talk) 00:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not going to happen. You make no attempts to reach consensus, continuing to push your own minority viewpoint, and harangue other editors in doing so. I've had enough of your failure to grasp the way we work here, your failure to accept defeat gracefully, and your persistent reverts against consensus. It's clear your IP address is static, but I wouldn't count on it being usable here for a while. Rodhull andemu 00:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

From an outside person to this discussion I have to say that you are pushing the most biast view point User:69.228.251.134. What you are trying to push is not encycopedic at all. I see no real sources for your view point. --Guerillero (talk) 02:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree, and this matter is now at WP:ANI#Police for wider examination. Rodhull andemu 02:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I would hazard a guess that the IP got a speeding ticket and is annoyed about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's THE TRUTH all right, or perhaps he has read that "a nation is that which has the monopoly of violence". I agree with Rodhullandemus assessment. I'll restart WP:LE's efforts to watch this one. SGGH ^ping! 13:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Are encyclopedia definitions prescriptive or descriptive?

Apparently political disputes between editors are often based on different underlying assumptions about how things are done in Wikipedia. It's easy to form a belief that an opposing editor is an unreasonable political extremist even though the main difference may be that they have some fundamentally different ideas about encyclopedias.

In this case I think the underlying difference is as in the title of this section. Perhaps making it explicit leads us to an amicable solution of the current dispute.

For groups and organisations that notoriously don't live up to their own standards, the decision whether we describe them as they are supposed to be or as they are in practice is crucial.

Sometimes the most natural description is neutral:

The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest judicial body in the United States, and leads the federal judiciary.

This is descriptive and prescriptive. A prescriptive definition might add that the SCOTUS makes an important contribution to the proper functioning of the US' court system, including aspects such as consistent application of the law. A descriptive definition might instead add that the SCOTUS gives the President and the Senate limited long-term control of the interpretation of the law, even going so far as to creatively reinterpret obsolete old laws and decisions that make no sense outside their original context in order create new rules that would have no chance of being passed as new laws by the legislative.

For a number of reasons there is also a gap between what the police is supposed to be and do, and what it is and does in practice. How big and important this gap is varies widely, not just between countries and different kinds of police within, but even on a local level. There is a huge difference between the incredibly obliging manner in which I, a foreigner, was treated by the British Transport Police when caught with a seriously overloaded car, and the way police even in the UK often malfunctions when dealing with its own problems, such as the Jean Charles de Menezes case or even relatively harmless cases such as this travesty.

I think in such cases we should generally use a prescriptive definition, but mention applicable descriptions as well. Practices such as severe overuse of potentially lethal "crowd control" techniques appear to be a common trait of almost all police forces in the world. Yet this is generally regarded as a failure of the police rather than its proper role. Consider a definition of the police that is carefully crafted to include tazering pregnant women who do not pose a risk to anybody (or confused Polish immigrants at an airport), arresting five-year-olds who are in a temper tantrum, illegal racial profiling, establishing "free speech zones", or this as normal functions. Such a definition may be perfectly correct as a descriptive definition. But it would be severely misleading. There is almost universal agreement that police acting in this way is stepping outside its core function. When it does so too regularly, too openly, and with too little repercussions, then this is seen as a perversion of police. Obvious examples would be the Gestapo or indeed any police force of a totalitarian state.

Should we rewrite the definition of "police" so that it includes the principal role of police in a totalitarian state? I don't think so. But this de facto function of police must be mentioned in some way. Currently it seems to be swept under the carpet. Hans Adler 09:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Hans. We need a definition of the Police which describes what they are supposed to be for. The other stuff can be mentioned later. Perhaps in a section called something like "Abuse of power". It can talk about individual police abusing power, the police as a group closing ranks to protect their own and the abuse of the police power that the state has, by those high up in the state. Yaris678 (talk) 10:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for making my point much more concisely. Hans Adler 11:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. :-) Yaris678 (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Why reiterate "reduce civil disorder" instead of protection of property?

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The law already contains codes against "civil disorder", so by saying "enforce the law AND reduce civil disorder" one is reiterating the point. Why?. If one takes the totality of the law, one will quickly see that the number of laws aimed at protecting/regulating property (whether state or private) are much greater than those that talk about "reducing civil disorder" (in fact, the majority of crimes in our society are property-related). So if one had to reiterate a point that already exists in the law vis-a-vis law enforcement officers, "enforce the law and protect property" would make more sense than "enforce the law and reduce civil disorder" 69.228.251.134 (talk) 22:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily; in the UK at least, the police have had powers granted since at least the Public Order Act 1936 and updated as recently as the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 to set out conditions under which public demonstrations take place; in that sense, they are not "enforcing the law", they are using powers given to them rather than using the penal clauses and powers of arrest and search granted by other statutes. The major difference is the discretionary nature of that power (e.g." the Chief Constable ... may"). Rodhull andemu 22:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're wrong. Here are the statistics of police-recorded crime in the UK. Their own words confirm what I said:

"The majority of crimes are property related. Vandalism accounts for 26% of all BCS crime (two-thirds of which is vehicle vandalism); criminal damage accounts for one in five (20%) of crimes recorded by the police.Vehicle-related theft accounts for 14% of all BCS crime. Offences against vehicles account for 13% of recorded crime. Burglary accounts for 7% of all BCS crime and 12% of recorded crime. Violent crime represents around a fifth (20%) of BCS crime. Violence against the person also accounts around a fifth (19%) of police recorded crime."

Source: http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/statistics/statistics080a.htm 69.228.251.134 (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

We are talking about different things here. I do not disagree that most crime is property-related; that's an artifact of society, and is covered by "enforcement of the law"; what I am arguing is the separation of purpose between law-enforcement by the use of penal provisions, and regulation of public order by use of discretionary powers, and no volume of statistics can make that distinction disappear. To be clear, "law enforcement" means quite simply using powers granted by Common Law or statute to control behaviours deprecated by society as a whole; and whereas some of those powers relate to public order, there is an extra layer of regulation that does not involve enforcement, at least initially. That's the distinction to be drawn here. Rodhull andemu 23:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The police's "discretionary powers" fall within the scope of the law. And even if they didn't, the distinction between the "discretionary power" the police have to "reduce civil disorder" and that which they have to protect property is one for which you have provided no evidence or explanation in the article or talk page. 69.228.251.134 (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

There is also the Queen's Peace. SGGH ^ping! 00:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Discretionary powers fall within applying the law; there is no element of "enforcement", which is an a posteriori concept compared to the imposition of conditions to public demonstrations, which is a priori. A detailed discussion of these differences, which seem to be getting more and more philosophical, and less and less encyclopedic, would be outside the scope of this article, and most certainly of its lead. However, if you can find a universally accepted definition of the role and functions of the Police suitable for the lead of such a necessarily general article, you go ahead and offer one, with sources. Unless and until you move away from the minutiae and realise that this article is couched in general terms, and stop trying to tweak it to meet your own point of view, we are not going to make much headway here. You are the editor seeking a change of wording, and therefore you should provide the sources. Arguments from first principles here are rarely helpful; neither is the attitude that "everybody knows" or that "it's obvious. It isn't, but the ball is well and truly in your court. Rodhull andemu 00:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

That police powers are given by law is missing the point. It is not these laws they are enforcing. They are enforcing other laws, such as property laws. They also use powers, such as directing traffic, protests, football crowds etc., so as to prevent to prevent civil disorder. Yaris678 (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu, after I showed you the statistics of police-recorded crime in the UK, you yourself said "I do not disagree that most crime is property-related." And the ratio for other countries is similar:

Global Trends in Crime. Source: http://www.allbusiness.com/professional-scientific/scientific-research/524294-1.html

So on the one hand, talking about the law (which police are "empowered to enforce"), we have many more codes protecting/regulating property than talking about "reduc[ing] civil disorder". And on the other, talking about ACTUAL police activity (including your "discretionary powers [that] fall within applying the law"), we have statistics showing how most police-recorded crime is property-related --once again dwarfing the reduction of "civil disorder" (for which you or Yaris678 have, by the way, provided no statistics). How then can we say that the sentence "enforce the law and protect property" doesn't make more sense or provide more verifiability than "enforce the law and reduce civil disorder"? 69.228.251.134 (talk) 01:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Your table of statistics is utterly irrelevant as regards a debate about a general definition of the purpose of the police, which is what this article is about. Statistics describe what happens; they do not determine the purpose of the police, and that is the point you miss. If there is a discrepancy between the purpose and the function of the police, that is not an issue for this article, but please feel free to start a different article with your sources. I repeat; this debate is irrelevant to an overall view of what the purpose of "police" is, over time and geography, and your specific point of view does not address that. Rodhull andemu 02:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, I'd also suggest that you edit either as a IP address or as User:Mr3003nights, but not both, to avoid accusations of sockpuppetry. You've been blocked as an anonymous IP, and also under that account. It's difficult to resist the inference that you are only here to disrupt, and as an admin, I would have no qualms about blocking the both of you for a lengthy period, if not indefinitely, unless you commit to one or the other. Your call. Rodhull andemu 02:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I provided evidence. Why do you WITHOUT EVIDENCE "determine the purpose of the police" by reiterating your "reduc[ing] civil disorder" mantra? Arguments from first principles here are rarely helpful; neither is the attitude that "everybody knows" or that "it's obvious". As you said, it isn't, but NOW the ball is well and truly in your court.So please provide sources Otherwise, such lack of evidence or verifiability, will be, in your own words "trying to tweak [the article] to meet your own point of view" 69.228.251.134 (talk) 02:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Having seen User talk:99.2.224.110 this, I've had enough of you. You are a serial disrupter of this encyclopedia, and don't belong here. All you accounts are blocked, not because I am an involved admin, but because you don't seem able to follow our most basic rules. You may email ArbCom if you like, but for the time being, your nonsense stops here and now. Rodhull andemu 02:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You are unblocked. Your image is evidence, but it's not a reliable source to determine what should be in the lead; that is up to competent authorities, and extrapolating your contention from those figures is original research, pure and simple. Rodhull andemu 14:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Guys, please stop this pointless argument and read my comment of 00:26 on 21 December 2009. It makes it perfectly obvious why there is a distinction made between enforcing the law and reducing civil disorder. Yaris678 (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, while I agree with Rod that the IP's changes to the lead have been unhelpful, I disagree with his suggestion of a separate article. That would be running close to a POV fork. I would say that abuses of power (and any other discrepancies worth mentioning, between what the police are supposed to do and what they sometimes do in practice) should be given space in this article. As I suggested above, sections of the article could be devoted to the subject. Yaris678 (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't seriously suggesting that such an article would necessarily survive, only pointing out that as regards this article, these POV edits are outside its current scope. I take your comments on board but have no desire to open such a can of worms as it would inevitably end up as a battleground. Look at the trouble we've had with climate change and global warming articles recently. It ain't worth the hassle. Rodhull andemu 22:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand Yaris678; you're saying that adding "reduce civil disorder" to "enforce the law" (to describe police function) is justified because even though the law already talks about reducing civil disorder, "there is a distinction made between enforcing the law and reducing civil disorder." Now, even if you could provide evidence for this distinction, the question remains: Why is "protecting property" not more relevant and full of "distinction" given that it occupies a much greater place not only in the law, but also in police actions (as I show in the statistics on police-recorded crime)? 69.228.251.134 (talk) 03:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as the UK are concerned, they revolve around protecting people, property and the queens peace - don't see them as prioritised. SGGH ^ping! 06:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

SGGH, you're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Didn't you read what I posted??? The UK police THEMSELVES report the following:

"The majority of crimes are property related. Vandalism accounts for 26% of all BCS crime (two-thirds of which is vehicle vandalism); criminal damage accounts for one in five (20%) of crimes recorded by the police.Vehicle-related theft accounts for 14% of all BCS crime. Offences against vehicles account for 13% of recorded crime. Burglary accounts for 7% of all BCS crime and 12% of recorded crime. Violent crime represents around a fifth (20%) of BCS crime. Violence against the person also accounts around a fifth (19%) of police recorded crime."

Source: http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/statistics/statistics080a.htm 69.228.251.134 (talk) 07:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No one is arguing that property crimes aren't a large proportion of crimes. However, you are missing the point in what I am saying. The law may well mention civil disorder but it won't say something like "Football fans of opposing teams meeting each other near to the football ground is illegal". It will say, effectively, "theft is illegal". Therefore, when the police deal with a theft they are enforcing the law, when they deal with football crowds they are not - they are reducing civil disorder. Yaris678 (talk) 10:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You ommitted that all the specifics of "theft is illegal" (e.g. Arrest person/group A when they enter into store B before time C and they grab item D etc) are likewise not mentioned in the law. And one would expect the amount of non-specificity and police discretion related to the huge body of legal codifications regulating/protecting property to exceed (and sometimes even include) that of the smaller body of those aimed at "reducing public disorder" -- particularly when the police-recorded statistics show that the majority of crimes are property related. 69.228.251.134 (talk) 12:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Arresting people is not part of "theft is illegal", it is a power that police have. Police use that power as part of enforcing the law. The law they are enforcing is not the one that gives them the power of arrest, it is the one that makes theft illegal. Yaris678 (talk) 13:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Correct. Theft is against the Theft Act, however the power of arrest is only a means by which a person is dealt with - because arrests facilitate a prompt investigation, they are not a punishment. In England the power of arrest comes from S. 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act I believe. SGGH ^ping! 16:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Remember your own words Yaris678:

"The law may well mention civil disorder but it won't say something like 'Football fans of opposing teams meeting each other near to the football ground is illegal'. It will say, effectively, 'theft is illegal'. Therefore, when the police deal with a theft they are enforcing the law, when they deal with football crowds they are not - they are reducing civil disorder."

So the thing you said made the "reduc[tion] of civil disorder" different from the "protection of property" (and thus worthier of mention in the lead despite its smaller body of laws and related police actions) referred to specific situations for which the law only provides general guidelines (non-specificity and police discretion) which you (incorrectly) attributed only to the "reduc[tion] of civil disorder". As I said, the same non-specificity and police discretion applies to the "protection of property". And even if you want to add or substitute this non-specificity and police discretion with laws that grant a separate power (e.g. of arrest), we could transfer your logic of

"Police use that power as part of enforcing the law. The law they are enforcing is not the one that gives them the power of arrest"

with equal validity to many actions (such as arrest, application of force etc) taken by the police in reaction to your football example ("Football fans of opposing teams meeting each other near to the football ground is illegal"). And that is even if we charitably agree that "arresting people" because "theft is illegal" was the entirety of the property-related regulation/protection I was referring to. It isn't.69.228.251.134 (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Reminder

This is a Talk page intended for discussion about improvements to the article. It is not a debating society to thrash out facts that may only be established by reference to existing reliable sources. Any other interpretation of facts and evidence to draw a conclusion is impermissible original research. Rodhull andemu 18:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

69.228.251.134, I am trying to be nice to you and explain why it is that your arguments aren't persuading anyone. You respond by (seemingly deliberately) missing the point of what I am saying, despite me making it explicit. I don't think that is going to persuade me or anyone else so I suggest you give up. Yaris678 (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have also tried to give some insight for this IP, but I agree this has to stop. Wikipedia is not a forum, and it is not a democracy. I suggest the user behind the IP find a forum to continue his or her debate. SGGH ^ping! 20:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Since Yaris678, unlike me, has provided no statistics or evidence, and since I also feel he "respond[s] by (seemingly deliberately) missing the point of what I am saying, despite me making it explicit"; and since I feel that this long debate Rodhullandemu complains about has come about precisely because of red herrings, arguments w/o evidence, account blocks and other such attempts to evade the strength of the evidence and logic I presented, I would like to request another opinion. Let's not lose focus here. The question remains:

Why reiterate "reduce civil disorder" instead of "protection of property" vis a vis police function when the former has neither greater presence in the law and police function, nor distinct features that would warrant its reiteration?

And therefore, should we simply delete the words "reduce civil disorder" from the lead, or introduce a sentence substitution/modification? 69.228.251.134 (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No. Reducing Civil Disorder is the key role of the Public Order Act, Anti-Social Behaviour legislation and so on. All the legislation relating to violence against the person has little relation to property. There are huge areas of police efforts which relate only to reducing violent disorder, equal in significance to those which work to fight risk to people or property. Any statistics which suggest otherwise are, frankly, incorrect because often dissuading violent disorder isn't always a quantifiable effort, or are just plain wrong. That is what the other users have been saying, and it should be the end of the matter. Ask your local police force. SGGH ^ping! 20:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

SGGH, you say that we should disregard the greater number of laws and police-reported crimes related to property in favor of the the lesser number devoted to civil disorder because "dissuading violent disorder isn't always a quantifiable effort". This is an argument from ignorance -- a classic logical fallacy. However, I do encourage you to find or carry out a study in which various "local police force[s]" around the world are surveyed about this. Then you might have some evidence to counter mine, and not just your POV. Not surprisingly, the very words that Rodhullandemu had unjustifiably directed toward me, fit you like a glove:

"Arguments from first principles here are rarely helpful; neither is the attitude that "everybody knows" or that "it's obvious". It isn't, but the ball is well and truly in your court."

69.228.251.134 (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Right, that is your first warning about your civility. You are becoming disruptive and not listening to reason. SGGH ^ping! 21:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Secondly, don't assume I don't know what I'm talking about just because I disagree with you. SGGH ^ping! 21:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's your evidence:

"The purpose of the police service is to uphold the law fairly and firmly; to prevent crime; to pursue and bring to justice those who break the law; to keep the Queen’s peace; to protect, help and reassure the community; and to be seen to do this with integrity, common sense and sound judgement." Page xxi of this document (PDF) from the Policy Studies Institute
"The duties of the police are to ensure that laws and regulations are complied with and to take the necessary steps to prevent crime." [1]

Nowhere in either of these sources (at least one of which is reliable) does it say anything about "protecting property" or "preserving hierarchical order." Mildly Mad^T_C 21:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

MildlyMad, The source you give is very interesting. It contains the quote:

It is surely right that on those occasions when the enforcement of the law is not compatible with the maintenance of the public order, it is the maintenance of order which should have priority.

I think this makes it clear, not only that "law" and "order" are two separate things, but that these aims can sometimes be in conflict. Yaris678 (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Mildly Mad, those kind of platitudes about police function--found even in the worst totalitarian states-- do not constitute evidence. Statistics and reports of the kind I presented do. Yaris678, in that quote you mention from the UK police, we must rely on the only evidence-based interpretation of the slogan "maintenance of public order" (as I said, the word "order" has 56 dictionary definitions). Since the UK police themselves report that the majority of crimes are property related. Source: http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/statistics/statistics080a.htm any sensible interpretation will conclude that "maintenance of public order" above the law, largely means protection of property--as when police shot desperate people (so-called "looters") in the aftermath of Katrina to protect property under the slogan of "maintaining order" 69.228.251.134 (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This guy is a troll with a point to prove, and entertaining him just results in eventual incivility. I'd give it up now if I were you. ninety:one 22:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree. He's just going on about the same stuff again and again and deliberately misunderstanding everything that is said to him. Yaris678 (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Third'd. It reeks of WP:TRUTH and WP:OR. Unless the IP has any concrete suggestions (incorporating non-WP:OR reliable sources) for improving the article, we are done here. Mildly Mad^T_C 22:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[edit] Police function: platitudes vs. evidence

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'll quote from the "original research" entry:

"To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."

I find it outrageous that some editors here will take platitudes about police function (e.g. "our mission is to bla bla") as proof!!! Such interpretations/conclusions, unless backed by evidence, THEMSELVES constitute WP:OR and WP:TRUTH -- often more extreme than usual if the platitudes come from an interested party. To give you a rather obvious example that we can all understand, if I were to cite the platitudes of police departments of say, fascist Italy, as "proof" of their function and disregard actual statistics/data related to their function, you would (quite justifiably) not take me seriously--especially if I insisted that anybody disregarding these platitudes is engaging in original research. That'd be turning reality on its head. Same when dealing with, say, giving credibility (as Rodhullandemu did) to the 1316 monarchical (read totalitarian) government decision to describe police function with rosy, euphemistic (and laughable) epithets like "peace officers" or "maintaining the Queen's Peace". This remains true when dealing with any government platitudes in modern western states. The burden of proof should be on the platitudes of authority figures, not on reliable statistics and data. These, as I showed in the last posts, overwhelmingly show that legal codifications and police function/discretionary powers deal primarily with protection/regulation of property. Any statement that leans toward platitudes as opposed to this evidence, constitutes WP:OR and WP:TRUTH. This includes, as I proved, reiterating "reduce civil disorder" instead of protection of property when describing police function. 69.228.251.134 (talk) 03:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Please also read WP:FRINGE. Consensus is clearly against you and all of your "evidence" so far has constituted original synthesis. If you can provide a source that directly states what you are arguing, we can add the information. Otherwise, please stop. Mildly Mad^T_C 03:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

That guy's still at it? My guess is he got a speeding ticket once and wasn't happy about having to pay the fine and have his insurance rates go up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to know what that guy thinks is wrong with protecting property. Or is he one of those who believes people shouldn't have the right to own stuff? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[edit] Conservative proposal

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mildly Mad says "If you can provide a source that directly states what you are arguing, we can add the information."

OK, the police-recorded evidence I've provided that

"The majority of crimes are property related" Source: http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/statistics/statistics080a.htm confirmed worldwide here: Global Trends in Crime. Source: http://www.allbusiness.com/professional-scientific/scientific-research/524294-1.html warrants at the very least, the following addition to the lead:

The police are people empowered to enforce the law, combat property crime and civil disorder.

This seems like a conservative proposal we can all agree with.

69.228.251.134 (talk) 04:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with protecting property? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

well, to make it more succinct I used the word "combat" to use it before both terms "property crime" and "civil disorder" (that way we don't need to use another word "reduce"). And since "reducing civil disorder" was preferred (deemed more concrete) than "maintaining order" by another editor, I thought the present proposal preferable to this other one I thought of, which reverts to the the earlier ambiguities of the word "order":

The police are people empowered to enforce the law, protect property and civil order.

Though this latter proposal still seems better than the present lead. 69.228.251.134 (talk) 04:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It would read better as "...protect property and preserve (or maintain) civil order." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Accept as per Baseball Bugs Previously, I would have argued that "protecting property" is already covered under "enforcing the law" or "maintaining civil order." But, in the interest of ending this dispute and WP:GOODFAITH, I accept the proposal (not to imply that I WP:OWN the article) on the condition that it is not eventually twisted around to imply that one of the functions of police is to perpetuate some sort of social hierarchy. Mildly Mad^T_C 05:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, since the article can now only be edited by registered accounts, I will log in as mr3003nights to introduce the consensus edit. 69.228.251.134 (talk) 07:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

If you are happy with the edit you have made, then we can draw a line under all this discussion. SGGH ^ping! 22:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

yes --Guerillero (talk) 06:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[edit] image:Politiabmw1.jpg

Any particular reason why a picture of an American police car was replaced by one from Romania? I'm not really bothered either way, but looking at the first few pictures, you could now be forgiven for thinking that the Police are confined to central and eastern Europe. Yaris678 (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I suspect it's an attempt to counter any American-centric focus in the article. Photographs of police are fairly common so I think we should be fairly selective. Dozens of photos of police cars aren't necessary given that most people know what one looks like - they would be better served in the articles on that respective country's force or state's force. I think we should keep only the best photographs of police related topics on this article. Is there one of Peel? SGGH ^ping! 22:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Robert Peel portrait from Wikimedia commons. Yaris678 (talk) 00:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Overview section

This section is superfluous IMO, there is nothing there that can't be in a history section. Overview sections are like super-lead sections, and I propose this be deleted and useful content relocated to the lead or the history sections as appropriate. SGGH ^ping! 11:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Yaris678 (talk) 12:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Introduction : function of police

[edit] Justifying the word "hierarchical" before the word "order"

[edit] Unanswered argument for the proposal of "hierarchical order"

[edit] A better sentence

[edit] Overview section (old comment)

[edit] Threats to the establishment

[edit] Are encyclopedia definitions prescriptive or descriptive?

[edit] Why reiterate "reduce civil disorder" instead of protection of property?

[edit] Police function: platitudes vs. evidence

[edit] Conservative proposal

[edit] image:Politiabmw1.jpg

[edit] Overview section