Talk:Victoria Police

Chief Acting Commissioner Link

Ken Lay, the acting commissioner's name links to an American man named Kenneth Lay, who died five years ago. this should probably be rectified at some point. 131.170.90.3 (talk) 04:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup

Needs a fair bit of cleanup. Things like the "joke between a NSW and VIC police officer" seem a bit misplaced.

Tenez le droit

Any evidence for claims? When I run the phrase through a simple translator, it comes back as "uphold the right"... and apparently "droit" means right in French. The info, if actually true (doubtful), is poorly phrased and may not be well-suited for the article's introduction.Jackk 09:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Like "right", "droit" means many things, including the English meaning "right" instead of "left". It can also mean "straight". In French, it's generally used in the plural to indicate "justice". "Uphold the right" in the intended sense (and not, for example, "hold up your right hand") could only be translated as "tenez les droits" (plural, "uphold the rights"). In the singular, the best translation is "hold it straight", matching the punctuation "tenez-le droit". Clearly it was a good idea to revert to a language that the police understand. Should this be added to the main page? Groogle (talk) 11:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

"Tenez le droit" and "Uphold the right" mean exactly the same thing - Victoria Police has not changed it motto, it has just chosen to put it in English so it is more easily understood by the general population. Calling "Tenez le droit" the former motto is therefore no appropriate. 110.32.129.40 (talk) 12:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Shooting of Graeme Jensen (events leading to Walsh Street)

Just found an article from 3 years ago with details on the events leading to Jensen's death and the controversy surrounding it by John Silvester. --BenM 13:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Headquarters

Isn't police headquarters in the complex at St Kilda Road? Why does the box say it's in Flinders Street?MickBarnes 22:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, force headquarters is the Victoria Police Centre at the World Trade Centre in Flinders Street. --Richmeister_talk 22:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm that it's in the World Trade Centre. The whitepages calls it the Victoria Police Centre. Josh Parris 05:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Victoria Police Tagged for Cleanup for 2 years.

I've had a look over this article now, and it's reading a lot better than it was compared to even 2 months ago let alone 2 years. I'm going to go ahead and remove the cleanup tag from this article. I'm sure this article could still use a little attention and ongoing work as most articles on Wikipedia do. But in general, it's readable and informative. Pursey 12:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Additional Cleanup

Hey,

I've done a bit more work on this article. I've tidied up a few red links, fixed up the unreferenced statements by providing citations, and updated the statistics included in the article already. This article has been submitted for re-assessment. Pursey 04:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

Remains at B class, you need to take it to WP:GA to get a higher assessment. I would suggest adding more references and writing them in a better style than just blue URL code, i.e. with retrieval dates, titles and so on. :) SGGH ^speak! 11:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:VictoriaPoliceFlag.JPG

Image:VictoriaPoliceFlag.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Victoria Police Vehicles

Should we add some stuff about the VicPol cars, booze buses and helicopters? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_car#Asia.2FOceania has a couple of pics and I'm sure that there are OS pics of the older cars as well. Libwolf (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Libwolf

Go for it I say. The NSWPOL article has such a section. -- Aαron 13:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Police brutality

Why isn't this mentioned? --193.198.16.211 (talk) 13:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

For one, this article is for the Victoria Police of AUSTRALIA. Nothing to do with Canada. I think I'll leave it at that... -- Aαron 05:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Then what about this http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/cop-questioned-by-inquiry-suspended/story-e6frfku9-1111116604757 or this http://www.solidarity.net.au/web/rally-against-racist-attacks-photos-report/ or This http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/police-punched-indian-protesters/story-e6frfku0-1225719210408 or this http://www.news.com.au/police-too-reliant-on-guns-in-volatile-situations-inquiry/story-0-1225756235843 or this http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/cops-taking-drugs-should-be-punished/story-e6frfku0-1225759118868 or this http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/top-cop-gave-false-figures-police-association/story-e6frfku0-1225759909827 or this http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/28/2669947.htm or this http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/police-dna-bungle-puts-7000-cases-in-doubt/2008/08/06/1217702123610.html

Nuff said. I've got hundreds more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.166.123 (talk) 10:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Few if any of these ALLEGATIONS actually constitute a charge of brutality. Maybe you should get your legal dictionary out - failing that, just get a normal one and learn some grammar while you're at it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.133.116 (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Marked for POV - Neutrality

Article has been marked by editor Backslash_Forwardslash as needing to be checked for neutrality (and the note says, "particularly in re undue weight"). Can anyone please show me where the issue is so it can be discussed, there is nothing here in the talk page to suggest what the issue may be, if there is a problem than lets get it sorted. Thanks for your help. inherentrisks 18:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inherentrisks (talk • contribs)

I don't know about that nutralist issue, but my nutrality issue is that you have a section about

Officers killed on duty

But I don't see a corrosponding section to show the multitudes of people killed by Victorian police. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.166.123 (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Chief Commissioners

As an encyclopedic article, I think this should include a list of Chief Commissioners from 1853 to the present. ShipFan (talk) 05:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Insignia of Rank

Does anyone know, and is it worth including, why VicPol rank insignia do not match the London Met's when presumbaly VicPol took them from the London force?Avalon (talk) 12:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Victorian Police Motorcycle, Geelong, Aust, jjron, 30.9.2010.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Victorian Police Motorcycle, Geelong, Aust, jjron, 30.9.2010.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 7, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-11-07. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng {chat} 11:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Picture of the day

An officer of the Victoria Police, the primary law enforcement agency of the Australian state of Victoria. The agency was founded in 1835 from an existing colonial police force of 875 men. As of 2011, the Victoria Police has over 12,190 sworn members, and over 2,900 civilian staff across 393 police stations.Photo: John O'Neill

Fair use candidate from Commons: File:Flag of the Victoria Police.svg

The file File:Flag of the Victoria Police.svg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:Flag of the Victoria Police.svg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. If no action is taken, it will be deleted after 7 days. Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 06:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Attempt to add misleading information

Just a note in support of the deletion of a 'Controversies' section which was added recently and which contained a lot of innacturate assertions. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such is expected to contain relevant true factual information. The substantive fact here is that a politician questioned the value gained by certain expenditure of public funds. That's hardly earth-shattering; they do that all the time; it's their job. However the ostensible addition of this fact appears to be no more than an excuse (see WP:COATRACK) for slipping several demonstrably false assertions about Landmark Worldwide (as established by numerous reliable sources) into the article:

1. There is no connection whatsoever between Landmark and the Church of Scientology. There is not even any similary in philosophy, content or methodology.
2. The seminars would not have been conducted by Werner Erhard, who has in fact never conducted any Landmark seminars.
3. The courses are three days long, not four. And the days are not fifteen hours long; Each day consists of eight to nine hours of tuition plus two and a half hours of breaks.
4. The summary of the promised results is inaccurate, and confuses the subject matter of several other courses offered by Landmark.
5. The final sentence refering to Landmark having initated some defamation cases, while not actually false, is certainly misleading bearing in mind that there were only a dozen such cases in the 22 year history of the corporation, and none at all in the last seven years.

The newspaper reporter may have been labouring under these misconceptions (or the politician he was reporting may have been), but if there were any merit in mentioning them in the article (which there isn't), it should be made clear that these were unsubstantiated misconceptions. For the record, numerous police forces (and other government departments) in several countries have at various times sent staff on Landmark courses. Almost universally they have reported high levels of satisfaction with the results, noting dramatic improvements in punctuality, efficiency and clarity of communications amongst other benefits. DaveApter (talk) 10:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• I did mess up adding the section as the paragraph should have gone in as 'In 2008...' in the existing 'Recent history – controversy and corruption allegations'. Aside from that (which I freely admit was a mistake on my part) I summarised (& quoted) the issue only as it was presented in the news source at the time. Someone could add a clarifying sourced statement but it doesn't change the fact that controversy, first in parliament (I have an additional Hansard reference), and then the newspaper, was reported as such. AnonNep (talk) 13:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

It may be acceptable to add a paragraph to the effect that this Police Force was criticised in 2008 for sending 37 officers on a training course at AU$450 per head (although this does seem to me to be a thoroughly trivial issue), but if so it would be appropriate to provide balance by also quoting those who supported the use of this training. What is not acceptable is to use this a pretext for perpetuating via Wikipedia the above-mentioned untruths regarding Landmark. DaveApter (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• I completely agree with you on balance (& its undeniably valuable) but the 'controversy' stemmed not only from the reputed action but from the way it was reported at the time. If a controversy occurred it should be sourced using fair use summary and quotes from contemporary source/s with additional summary and quotes from rebuttal/later source/s. I have no issue with that. Sourced controversy should be there for such addition not deleted. You can't have 'balance' if its deleted within hours. I would have thought the correct move would have been to add that balance from sources not to remove it entirely as if the 'controversy' never happened? AnonNep (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Merge proposal

As written, Victoria Police Media Unit does not make or reliably source any substantive claim for why it should stand alone as a separate article from the main one on the Victoria Police itself — and, in fact, it falls afoul of WP:NOTADVERT, as it appears to be a thinly veiled rewrite of the kind of "purpose and mission statement" that the organization would post to its own website about itself, rather than anything resembling an actual encyclopedia article. It certainly warrants mention in the main article on the Victoria Police, but there's been no credible reason provided why it would need its own standalone article as a distinct topic from the parent organization. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• I do think that Victoria Police Media Unit needs a separate article. The main page of VP will become cumbersome to read if every unit/department's description/objective is added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zapacit (talk • contribs) 21:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Two things: firstly, where's your reliable source coverage to demonstrate that the media unit is independently notable in its own right? And secondly, a comprehensive unsourced summary of every individual department's own self-penned statement of its own "objective" isn't what we do on Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

You'r right. That article is not sourced and i cannot provide a source for it.--User:Zapacit 20:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Capitalisation

All of the major style guides, including Wikipedia's, say to minimise unnecessary capitalisation. There is utterly no reason to capitalised "chief commissioner"—it's a position or job. This is commonplace, except in many organisations themselves, which indulge in what we call "vanity capitalisation". I'm afraid, User:Zapacit, that Wikipedia doesn't do vanity capping. Please do not revert again: if you believe the style guide needs to be changed, go to the talkpage there and propose it. Tony (talk) 11:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)