Talk:Royal Canadian Mounted Police

An event mentioned in this article is a May 23 selected anniversary

---

Sentence fragment deleted

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

RCMP's motto

"Maintiens le droit".

Cher Monsieur "142.165.92.240",

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

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

---

Kelisi 2005/2/7

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

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

• • According to RCMP's website, the meaning is "defending the law". -- Webgeer 16:37, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

---

Victis 2006-05-29

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

Removed vandalism

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

" Related link

• Fruit Machine "

picture

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

You want a picture of a mountie smiling as they scrape whats left of some guy from an accident in the background? - Lucky13pjn 03:05, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Photo is of a training exercise.[[1]] Glenlarson 16:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Still, it's a creepy picture. - Lucky13pjn 19:35, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Hehe, I didn't really pay too much attention to the background. It could be cropped though. dave 16:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

If you mean why cant we have a picture of an officer not in the formal red outfit, I agree. Zhatt 18:01, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

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

Featured Article

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

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

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

Northwest Mounted Police

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

Yes there is. It says in the history section that the RCMP descends from the NWMP. -- Necrothesp 13:04, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see. let me rephrase then: The article doesn't mention that NWMP expands to Northwest Mounted Police. Rl 13:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, it refers to the Northwest Mounted Police and then later in the same section refers to the NWMP, which I would have thought was quite obviously an abbreviation. But I'll add it if it's confusing. -- Necrothesp 14:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience. If I get redirected to a long article and I can't see the word I was looking for, I let my browser search for it. The article mentions "North West Mounted Police", but I had been redirected from "Northwest Mounted Police". That explains why I missed the obvious. I can't think of an example off the top of my head, but in such cases we try to mention the redirect word in the first paragraph. So in this case, maybe something like "The unit was called North West Mounted Police (NWMP) from its creation in 1873 to 1904." Rl 14:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

"Fair shake"

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

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

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

Er...

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

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

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

Image

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

This is all fine and good, but the rationale is being misapplied in this instance and the concomitant rationale dubious. Both images are from government-sanctioned sources – one (with horse) directly from the RCMP and another (Mountie amidst crowd) from the Library and Archives Canada – and thus are comparably 'free'. Thus, there's little justification to replace the one image with horse (allegedly 'unfree') with another non-descript one of Mountie amidst crowd (allegedly 'free'). Moreover, the one with horse at least depicts the unique Musical Ride; so in so far as it remains the purview of one article (this one) there shouldn't be a problem. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Er, also, if one is edit-warring to remove free content, please don't remove a link to Wikimedia Commons while doing it. Thanks. Jkelly 17:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

My apologies regarding the commons link, but I suggest you brush up on Wp image sourcing guidelines and more clearly justifying and discussing this or that before precipitating a nonsensical edit/reversion. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Is that what all of this was about -- you thought that I was inserting an image incorrectly labelled as free? Not everything at Library and Archives Canada is free; you're quite right; luckily L&AC are quite clear about what is and what is not. You can see the restrictions on use for this image, for instance. It's copyrighted-any-purpose. Other material there is copyright-non-commercial, and other material there has an expired copyright. I'd like to assure you that I am, actually, very careful about this sort of thing. If the Commons image wasn't free, I would agree that the one from the RCMP website was preferable. Jkelly 17:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Not really. You seem to be operating under the perhaps false assumption, or perhaps I am (but I don't think so), that the pic you prefer is any different in ultimate usability from the one that I've uploaded. In other words, I believe the pic with horse is similarly 'free' and not 'non-free'. As linked (and with copyright note) and as the 'Important notices' indicate (namely copyrighted, public, non-commercial use), I'm not yet convinced that this fundamentally differs from the L&AC picture. Moreover, the horse pic depicts the (unique) Ride: something which the pic of the Mountie amidst crowd, or any other that I see in Wp, doesn't. The RCMP logo is another example. I'm unconcerned if it's in the Commons or not and am remiss to edit war.

My point is this: given that both images are essentially from the same source – the Canadian government – it seems nonsensical to deem one as being (more) 'free' while the other as being (less) 'free' or not. And forgive my prior brusqueness. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The licensing on the two images is different, and I don't know how to demonstrate that other than pointing you to the L&AC licensing information. The L&AC one allows commercial use and derivatives, the one from the RCMP website doesn't. For free, reusable images of the Musical Ride, see Commons cat Musical Ride, which is a subcat of the Commons Category Royal Canadian Mounted Police. All I can say is that, yes, you're right, there are images at L&AC that are under Crown Copyright, or are under some other unfree copyright, but that is indicated in the licensing description (see this image of Castro for example -- it isn't free to reuse). Did you see, in the link to the source of the image I gave above, the copyright and licensing information? Jkelly 18:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I see that now, thanks. However, the commons images are insufficient; while they depict the Ride, they are black-and-white and unsuitable to dually depict the Red Serge uniform and the Ride.

I also think that, given the RCMP logo on the same page (which generally have similar or added restrictions than that of the horse pic regarding usage), standards are being applied inequitably and inconsistently for reasons not what. In any event, I will seek alternate means to obtain a picture that cannot be contested. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Image:RCMP mounted rally at Queens Park.jpg

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

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

Ranks

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

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

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

Intro

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

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

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

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

Separate RCMP history page?

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

Ian Bush?

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

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

Criticism?

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

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

Wow, only one small link at the bottom that shows the scandals of the RCMP. No mention of it anywhere else in the article. That isn't fair and balanced at all. The scandals of the RCMP make Hoover's FBI look like small time crooks.

Use of Horses

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

Those are from the Vancouver Police Department's mounted squad, not the RCMP.Bobanny 06:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks fot the clarification, I wasn't sure. Zoobtoob 04:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

PRIME

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

PRIME-BC

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

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

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

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

Duties of various ranks

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

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

The RCMP in popular culture -- Dragon Boys

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

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

Queen Elizabeth as RCMP commissioner

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

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

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

parade

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